Tag Archive for: transparency

Transparency Issues Undermining Trust in Harris County Government

1/10/25 – Sometimes it seems transparency issues with Harris County government just never cease. For instance…

You go to the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) website to look for “active construction projects” in your area. But the “Active Construction Projects” page is not working. And it hasn’t worked for months.

You wanted to know what HCFCD had done for you before voting on a 63% tax increase they requested. But the latest document posted in the download section of their website is from 2020 – more than four years ago.

Screen capture from HCFCD.org on 1/10/25 at 6:30PM showed last update to Document section was in 2020.

You lead a flood coalition representing hundreds of thousands of people and seeking to participate in public online meetings about flood control. You repeatedly ask for notice of the meetings, but get none.

You file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request for a preliminary engineering report that HCFCD wants public comments on. But they refuse to give it to you and protest the request to the State Attorney General.

All of these scenarios are real. And current.

The Deeper You Dig, the More You Suspect

What are they trying to hide? Do they really want public input? Are they trying to cover up embarrassing incompetence? Government waste? Is this a case of bureaucratic laziness? Or do they just not want to deal with a public that might dare to disagree.

Two things are certain. The harder you push, the more they talk about how transparent they are. And the penchant for secrecy undermines trust in Harris County Government.

Let’s dissect just one of the examples above – the FOIA request.

Details on Kingwood Diversion Ditch FOIA Request

After Hurricane Harvey, Harris County Flood Control District commissioned a Kingwood Area Drainage Study. Commissioners approved it on August 13, 2019.

HCFCD held a Community Engagement Meeting to discuss the study on October 20, 2020. It found 85% of the storm water runoff from Montgomery County went into the natural channel of Bens Branch rather than being diverted into the Kingwood Diversion Ditch. 

The Drainage Study also found the Bens Branch drainage channel has less than a 2-year level of service. This translates to a greater than 50% chance of structural flooding in any given year. 

Where Kingwood Diversion Ditch splits off from Bens Branch
Looking E at where Kingwood Diversion Ditch (horizontal) splits off from Bens Branch (vertical) just north of Northpark Drive (out of frame to right).

The Drainage Study recommended increasing the conveyance capacity of the Diversion Ditch and completely blocking flow from Montgomery County into the natural channel of Bens Branch through Kingwood. The Study listed improvement of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and Taylor Gully as the two top priorities to avoid future flooding in Kingwood. 

Excessive flow entering the natural channel of Bens Branch is the root cause of the erosion of the Bens Branch channel. The Diversion Ditch is supposed to siphon water out of Bens Branch, but it’s obviously not working as planned,

After release of the Kingwood Drainage Study, Harris County Commissioners authorized a preliminary engineering study for improvement of the Kingwood Diversion Ditch. Neel-Schaffer, Inc. received the contract on June 29, 2021. The value was $437,685 and specifications called for the report to be issued in 300 days.

Excessive Delays

However, HCFCD held a Virtual Community Engagement Meeting on March 7th, 2024, to discuss the results of this study. This was 982 days after the contract – more than three times the duration specified. 

The stated purpose of the meeting was to obtain questions and solicit public comment. 

To formulate reasonable questions and comments, Chris Bloch, a retired Kingwood engineer and flood fighter, filed a FOIA request on March 6th to obtain the full report. But HCFCD denied his request.

HCFCD said the report was still in draft form and had the County Attorney send a letter to The Texas Attorney General objecting to disclosure of some of the information included in the Preliminary Engineering Report.

The Attorney General allowed HCFCD to keep the draft secret. But public comments on the secret report were due on March 20, 2024, two weeks after the meeting that presented only high-level findings.

Bloch’s beef? “As an engineer familiar with Kingwood drainage conditions, it is impossible to make reasonable questions or comments on a Study which cannot be seen.” He concluded, “It is clear, the priority of improving Kingwood Drainage does not seem to have any urgency.”

Block wrote me on December 14, 2024 about his ordeal.  That was:

  • 283 days after the close of public comments
  • 1,264 days after the contract for the Preliminary Engineering Report was authorized
  • 1,516 days after the Kingwood Drainage Study Community Engagement Meeting.

Block says he requested a meeting with Flood Control personnel responsible for the report, but they did not respond. He still hasn’t received the report.

Ray of Light

There is a ray of light, however. 1318 days after the study was commissioned, HCFCD says they have plans to finally review it with Harris County Commissioners Court on February 6, 2025. HCFCD indicates they may give the report to Bloch after that … if commissioners approve it.

Do you have a similar story about government transparency? Please send it to me using the contact form of this website.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/10/25 using information from Chris Bloch

2691 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Other Areas Disclose Road-Bond Spending Details, But Not Harris County

While major cities and counties throughout Texas post maps and detailed descriptions of their road-bond spending and projects, Harris County does not.

In June 2022, County Commissioner Adrian Garcia pitched bonds for roads, parks and public safety totaling $1.2 billion. It included $900 million for roads, $200 million for parks and $100 million for public-safety infrastructure.

Commissioners Tom Ramsey and Jack Cagle tried to slow the bond offering down until projects could be identified, prioritized, and estimated. However, Garcia, with the help of Commissioner Rodney Ellis and County Judge Lina Hidalgo, put the bond on the November ballot and it passed with little disclosure.

A series of poorly advertised and attended public meetings provided no details as to how the money would be spent except for some high-level breakdowns between roads and parks. Neither did the bond website – despite promises made in Commissioners Court that it would.

Nine months later, Harris County still has not provided any details.

Rahman Presentation to ACEC Now Public

Dr. Milton Rahman, P.E., PMP, CFM, ENV SP., Executive Director and County Engineer did provide a project update earlier this month about the bond to the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) Houston. However, it provided only a little more detail than we already knew about how the money would be allocated. And it provided no location-specific data about where the money would be spent, i.e., which stretches of roads.

Below are several key slides from Dr. Rahman’s full presentation.

Looking only at transportation and drainage (second table), Precinct 3 will receive approximately $70 to $90 million less than Precincts 1 and 2 and $40 less than Precinct 4.

To qualify for any funding, roads must have a Pavement Condition Index below 40 (very poor to failing). But in scoring, roads will also be ranked by their surrounding population and the number of socially vulnerable residents. (See below).

The road bond was broken up into five different segments; this was one. For those other criteria, see the slide below.
Note references to population and social vulnerability. Rahman did not specify the weights given to these other factors.

Rahman did assign weights to partnership dollars, but he fails to define the factors. For instance, what does he mean by “project area” below? It gets a whopping 25% of the weight.

In short, he still won’t say where the money will go.

11X More for Admin than in Flood Bond 5X Larger

But Dr. Rahman does plan to take $110 million for management and administration. Compare that to the $10 million allocated for admin in 2018 flood bond that totaled $5 billion with partner funding. Dr. Rahman will take 11 times more for a bond one-fifth the size. It’s even more than the $100 million being invested in public-safety facilities which were so sorely in need of help before the election!

The County disclosed none of this to voters before they voted on the bond.

Even now, five months later, with the little information we have, I would find it impossible to make an informed decision based on this vague, high-level, process-oriented information presented by Dr. Rahman. But I do have deep suspicions that the $110 million could go to pay raises for political hires.

Rahman Withholding Pavement Condition Information

Even though Harris County has calculated a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for every road in the county, it has not published the information. Nor did the Engineering Department supply the PCI report to ReduceFlooding.com in response to a direct request.

And even through Dr. Rahmen has already allocated the money, nowhere in his report does he address the number of lane miles needing repair in each precinct.

Other Oddities

For the record, Precinct 3 will receive the least money by far. It has almost half the county’s lane miles to maintain (47%) but will receive less than one-fifth of the bond money allocated to roads and drainage.

Moreover, large portions of Precincts 1 and 2 fall within the City of Houston and other municipalities such as Pasadena and Baytown. Thus they share responsibility and costs.

Finally, before redistricting, Commissioner Garcia made sure that most of the bad roads in his Precinct 2 magically wound up in Precinct 3.

With all the other factors folded in, there’s no guarantee most of Precinct 3’s roads will ever see 2022 road bond money.

Other Areas Far More Transparent

Because of the complexity of allocating bond dollars, virtually all major cities and counties in Texas simply publish maps that show where bond money will go.

But not in Harris County! That would be too simple. And why be transparent when you can keep people in the dark and avoid complaints about fairness?

To see how transparently other areas treat their voters, consult the links below.

When governments go out of their way to conceal information as certain commissioners have here, it raises the question “Why?”

It’s time you started demanding answers to that question. Your safety is at stake.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/8/23

2017 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

Ellis Wants You To Address Commissioner’s Court on Redistricting

After 100 people objected to Commissioner Rodney Ellis redistricting plan at last Thursday’s Commissioner’s Court, the following day he placed item #336 on the Emergency Agenda for this Tuesday’s meeting.

The item says, “Request by the Commissioner of Precinct 1 to receive public input regarding Harris County Commissioners Court redistricting plans, and consider and possibly adopt an order approving a new district/precinct plan for Harris County Commissioners Court, including any amendments thereto.”

An Invitation from Rodney Ellis to You

So it should come as no surprise that Mr. Ellis sent out the following message today. I’m reprinting it verbatim below and will add a few observations at the end.

But the important thing is that Mr. Ellis wants you to sign up to comment during Commissioner’s Court on his plan, so the world can hear what you think of it.

Ellis’ Letter

Dear Friends,

Every decade, after each U.S. census, states, cities and counties engage in a process called redistricting, where they adjust the boundaries of their governing districts to reflect changes in population growth and other factors.

For the last six weeks, Harris County has held public meetings across the county to hear your thoughts. 

Based on what we learned, and in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, we’re proposing new boundaries for county commissioner districts that are reflected in the map posted here [his]. Our plan seeks to keep communities of interest together and brings together areas that have been split apart for years.

For too long this county has been intentionally divided by precinct boundaries that deny people the opportunity to elect representation that accurately reflects the views of the majority of our communities. 

“The boundaries proposed cease that continued suppression, and allows (sic) the voices and views of the people to be reflected by those who represent them.”

Rodney Ellis

In Harris County, we’re committed to a fair and transparent process. That’s why we held public meetings across the county and why we are taking public comment now on the proposed maps.

You will hear some of my colleagues complain – and complain loudly. Sadly, they are more concerned about preserving their political power and getting headlines than they are about getting better representation for you. 

You can provide YOUR feedback on the proposed maps in person or virtually. Public hearings on the adoption of a redistricting map in Harris County will be held on Tuesday, October 26 and Thursday, October 28. You MUST complete this form in order to testify.

For questions or assistance with the Appearance Request Form, please contact CommissionersCourt@hctx.net or 713-274-1111. If you cannot attend, you can still let your voice be heard by submitting your written comments to CommissionersCourt@hctx.net.

Redistricting will impact the direction of this county for years to come. We will continue to fight for you to have the fair representation that everyone in Harris County deserves.

For more information on the Harris County redistricting process, you can visit the Harris County Attorney Office’s redistricting page.

Sincerely,

Rodney Ellis

Rehak Comments

I have five comments.

  1. Denies representation? How does he think Adrian Garcia, Lina Hidalgo and he got elected?
  2. Communities of interest intentionally divided? A third of the comments last week must have pointed that out as a flaw in HIS map.
  3. The boundaries in Ellis’ map would cease suppression? During the last presidential campaign Harris County voted 55.9% Democrat and 42.7% Republican. Democrats currently hold 60% of the voting power on Commissioners Court and Ellis’ map would make that 80%. And in the last meeting, Ellis asked to see a map with 100% Democratic precincts! With 80% of the vote, Democrats would have a super-majority and could raise taxes without Republican consent.
  4. Allows voices and views of people to be reflected by those who represent them? Let’s hear from the people of Cedar Bayou about how they like Adrian Garcia trying to shift $191 million of flood bond money to another area – immediately before redistricting.
  5. Fair and transparent process? Why don’t we know where Garcia wants to shift the money? The vote on that is tomorrow, right before they take up redistricting!

Please sign up to talk Tuesday. If you can’t, please email CommissionersCourt@hctx.net.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/25/2021

1518 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.

Baseless Claims of Historic Racism, White Supremacy in Allocation of Flood Funds

Members of the Northeast Action Collective (NAC) have falsely alleged “historic racism” in the allocation of flood-mitigation funds. And without evidence, the group also cited “a rising white supremacist movement” in Harris County as a reason to move money from high-income to low-income watersheds “as quickly as possible.”

Analysis of historical funding data obtained from Harris County via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request shows that minority and low-income watersheds have received the lion’s share of funds since 2000. Yet at the 6/29/21 Harris County Commissioners Court meeting, NAC members claimed the opposite.

From Baseless to Bizarre

“Historic racism” and “white supremacy” were just two of dozens of baseless and bizarre claims in the group’s manifesto.

NAC also claimed that:

  • It is “fighting for better drains and more regular drain upkeep.” NAC then blames the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) for being insensitive to residents needs. Perhaps that’s because HCFCD is not responsible for street drainage; the City and (in unincorporated areas of Harris County) Precinct Commissioners are.
  • “The City won’t pay attention to neighborhoods where Black and Brown people live” … even as they complained to County Commissioners.
  • HCFCD has “underfunded” Greens and Halls Bayous for decades while ignoring the fact that the entire county was underfunded before the 2018 flood bond.
  • HCFCD needs more transparency, even though NAC ignored readily available information about HCFCD spending.
  • The flood bond was supposed to counteract historic racism, even though the language approved by voters never mentions race.

These claims deserve closer scrutiny. Let’s look at some of the most serious falsehoods.

Racial Equity Not in Flood-Bond Language

NAC claims the flood-bond promised racial equity in the distribution of funds; it didn’t. The text of the flood bond never mentions race, minorities, historic underinvestment, income, social justice, social vulnerability or any of the other things NAC says it does. Those concepts were all heaped onto the one mention of “equitable” in the bond language (paragraph 14G). It puts equity in a geographic context with a prefatory clause focused on political boundaries. (“Since flooding issues do not respect jurisdictional or political boundaries, the Commissioners Court shall provide a process for the equitable distribution of funds…).

Areas, such as Lake Houston, asked to include that because flood mitigation requires upstream detention in other counties. The inability to cross political boundaries for flood mitigation would handicap areas near the county line forever.

Historic Racism Not Evident in Funding

NAC claims “historic racism” in flood mitigation funding, but refuses to acknowledge historic advantages in funding:

  • Eight minority and low-income watersheds (out of 23 total) received 71% of all HCFCD capital funds between 2000 and Harvey. ($1.1 billion out of $1.5 billion.) The other 15 higher income watersheds split the remaining $400 million. So “historic racism” in funding does not exist, at least not in Harris County and not at HCFCD. See links to data and related articles below.
  • Out of 23 watersheds, Halls and Greens Bayou Watersheds alone received $222 million between 2000 and Harvey. That’s 15% of all funding during those years.
  • They also received another $200 million out of $1.1 billion spent since Harvey – 18%.
HCFCD Capital-Improvement Spending between 2000 and Harvey arranged by percentage of low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents. Halls has the highest LMI % and Little Cypress the lowest. The top eight watersheds (darker blue) have LMI percentages above 50%; the others below. Data obtained via FOIA request.
New detention basin at Hopper and US59, photographed in April. One of four new basins in the Halls Bayou watershed that doesn’t exist according to NAC.

“Rising White Supremacist Movement” Not Seen in Funding or Evidence

NAC claims, “The most viable path to equity is to reallocate money for projects in wealthier watersheds to projects in watersheds with predominantly BIPOC and LMI residents.” (BI-POC stands for Black, Indigenous and People of Color. LMI stands for Low-to-Moderate Income.) But NAC doesn’t stop there.

Because of “a rising white supremacist movement in Texas and the county, and decades of underinvestment, the only strategy rooted in justice is to move as much money as quickly as possible to low-income watersheds.”

Northeast Action Coalition

Then NAC claims that its members do not believe that “current HCFCD leadership is actually committed to racial equity or justice.” I guess they don’t get out in the neighborhood much and look at all the flood-mitigation projects going in!

One of three new detention basins under construction in the Greens Bayou Watershed. It doesn’t exist either according to NAC.

Demand for Transparency That Already Exists

The NAC manifesto also demands, “full transparency on spending.” Yet:

  • HCFCD supplied historical funding data going back more than two decades. NAC and partner organizations ignored it.
  • All HCFCD spending is audited.
  • HCFCD’s website details spending and projects in each watershed.
  • It also shows – by watershed – all active construction and maintenance projects, and their value.
  • All HCFCD expenditures are approved by Commissioners in open, public meetings.

When Commissioners Ellis and Garcia claim that all the funding is going to rich watersheds and none to poor watersheds, they should know better. They approved all the money going to low-income areas!

The Real Problem

In the 18 years between 2000 and Harvey, the Flood Control District had only $1.5 billion to spend on capital improvement projects. Even with partner funding, that works out to only a little more than $80 million per year. According to multiple sources, for decades HCFCD had to save up money – sometimes for years – to afford construction projects. So, in some years, there were NO flood-mitigation projects at all, anywhere in the county.

Despite that, eight LMI watersheds received $1.1 billion out of $1.5 billion total dollars. That’s 71% of all capital spending – hardly “historic racism” or evidence of “white supremacy.” The other 15 more affluent watersheds combined got only 29%.

The sad fact is that no one in Harris County got enough flood-control dollars to prevent flooding before Harvey. It took Harvey to wake voters up to the need for better flood control.

In fairness, as I have shown in related articles below, minority, low-income watersheds did suffer a disproportionate share of damage in the last two decades. But dollars have flowed to that damage. Those damaged communities have received the vast majority of flood-mitigation funds.

Halls and Greens didn’t flood because of racism. And shouting racism from the rooftops won’t fix their flooding problems. It will only cloud issues and divide people.

For More Information

In early March, I submitted a FOIA request to Harris County for capital improvement funds by watershed dating back to 2000. Here is the county’s response: HCFCDs historical construction funding by watershed.

I then compiled a summary spreadsheet that includes related information, such as population and watershed size, also supplied by the County in response to my FOIA request.

After analysis, I published these findings:

Also, here are several articles with aerial photos that show what the money bought.

Finally, here’s an article about how Commissioner’s filled a potential shortfall in partnership funds to prevent possible delays in construction of flood mitigation projects. Trust To Fully Fund Flood Mitigation Projects Without Partner Assistance For At Least Next Six Years.

Posted by Bob Rehak on July 7, 2021

1408 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.

Buzbee Has a Chance to Succeed with Flood Mitigation; Turner Blew His

I’m voting for Tony Buzbee on Saturday. It’s not just that Buzbee has a chance to succeed with flood mitigation; it’s that Sylvester Turner blew his.

833 Days after Hurricane Harvey, it’s hard to tell what the City of Houston has accomplished in terms of flood mitigation or even what the City hopes to accomplish. That’s not to say no work has been done. Or that I don’t appreciate that work.

I just can’t find a comprehensive list of projects and where they stand that matches what Mayor Sylvester Turner has promised the Lake Houston Area.

Turner Not Getting Job Done, Not Committed to Transparency

I did find two City web sites that catalog flood mitigation projects.

  • “City of Houston Harvey Relief” lists four flood mitigation projects, none of which involve the Lake Houston area. Worse, that page has not been updated in two years, even though other parts of the site have frequent updates. There’s not even a way to link to that page from the site’s navigation! You can only find it through search engines.
  • City of Houston Public Works also operates a site called “BuildHoustonForward.Org”. It shows no projects in the Lake Houston Area or the San Jacinto Watershed. (See below.) In fairness, the site does say they are still uploading projects. But really! After 833 days! The map below shows where the City’s priorities are. Just look at the concentration. There’s nothing in Kingwood, around Lake Houston or ANYWHERE in the entire San Jacinto watershed!
Screen Capture from Build Houston Forward on 12/10/2019 at 6pm.

Net: I believe the Lake Houston Area is a low priority for Mayor Turner.

Worse, he has accepted $5,000 from Kathy Perry Britton, whose company, Perry Homes, contributed to the flooding of hundreds of Kingwood homes. The timing of the contribution, after the City’s cease-and-desist letter to Perry, looks like a brazen attempt to buy influence. Turner’s acceptance of the contribution speaks volumes about his priorities yet again. Meanwhile, Perry missed it’s own first deadline, exposing residents to more flood risk. And there was nary a word from Turner.

What Happened to All the Projects Turner Promised?

I have lost faith in Mayor Sylvester Turner to get the job done. Flood mitigation is complex. It requires partnerships and funding from multiple sources. Those partners must trust each other. And it’s not clear we can take Mayor Turner at his word. What happened to Lake Houston Dam Gates, maintenance dredging on the San Jacinto, storm drain repairs, and clearing the mouths of drainage ditches around the lake? What happened to the drainage repairs that Turner promised us Perry would make in Woodridge Village?

Buzbee: A Fresh Start and Fresh Approach

The final day to vote for mayor of Houston is this Saturday. It’s time for a fresh start. I have been meeting with Tony Buzbee re: his priorities for flood mitigation as have many other Lake Houston area flood mitigation leaders. I am refreshed by his openness, willingness to talk, and commitment to transparency and accountability. No doubt, the man has fire in his belly. He’s not a career politician; he’s down to earth and plain spoken.

Buzbee has made many visits to the Kingwood area. He waded onto the mouth bar like a Marine at Normandy (he is a Marine BTW). He witnessed the May mine breach at the Triple PG sand mine on the West Fork and made it a central part of his campaign for Mayor.

Tony Buzbee, on banks of Caney Creek at Triple PG Sand Mine Breach in May.

Buzbee has specified – in detail – his commitments to flood mitigation projects in the Lake Houston Area, as well as Houston in general.

Buzbee’s open letter to the Lake Houston Area includes provisions that address best practices for sand mining and developers; removing sediment from the river and lake; working across political boundaries; openness; transparency; drainage improvements; professional project management and much more. See below.

He has put those commitments in writing. And he has signed the document. I urge you to read it before going to the polls on Saturday. I have reprinted the text below for ease of viewing on portable devices.

Signed Buzbee Commitments

Commitments by Tony Buzbee to the Lake Houston Area Community that he will put in place, if he becomes Mayor of Houston from the runoff election in December, 2019.

If some of these measures are already in place, Tony will improve them as stated below.  If these measures are not already in place, Tony will put them in place by the time frame stated.  Tony agrees to work with local community groups, such as the Lake Houston Area Long Term Recovery Task Force, to identify and flesh out details of these plans.

First 100 days:
  • Have fully operational a Website that will have fundamental info on the additional gates on Lake Houston project, C.I.P.# S-000890, (project manager, engineering & environmental studies contractors, identified project milestones, etc.). This Website shall also have project reporting, updated every month on the status of reaching those milestones or not, plus explanations of why not, if that is the case, and subsequent plans to correct any delays to get the project back on schedule.  This includes a commitment from Tony that this project will stay on schedule to be completed by fall of 2022.
  • Announce what City of Houston (COH) department and individual will lead the responsibility for the City of Houston in taking the significantly expanded leadership role with other government agencies (HCFCD, SJRA, CWA, FEMA, USACE, Montgomery, Liberty & other surrounding counties, State of Texas and Texas Agencies, and other government and non-government entities (NGOs) as necessary) in achieving world-class flood protection projects & policies for the San Jacinto Watershed. This COH department shall be given significant and proper resources to function as a world-class agency to provide the expected world-class results.
    • Some potential milestone difficulties that have been questioned specifically for the Lake Houston Gates project, that may need particular scrutiny are the necessary buyouts of property downstream of the Lake Houston Dam and associated mitigations problems identified in any environmental study, including Superfund sites.
  • Continue to fund and execute the complete removal of the blockage area in the West Fork of the San Jacinto River commonly referenced as “the Mouthbar” and stay committed to the removal of sediment in both the East and West Fork Rivers to restore the conveyance of these rivers to the levels of when the Lake Houston dam was built.  It is not expected that the removal of the Mouthbar and other sedimentation areas will be completely removed in 100 days, however there will be a show of progress, commitment to remove these areas and identify a maintenance plan with a funding source that will ensure conveyance is maintained in the future.
  • Release plans on how the COH, in it’s new expanded leadership role, will work with the appropriate government agencies (HCFCD, SJRA, State of Texas, Federal Government, etc.) and appropriate non governmental entities to remove sediment & debris from all the inlets & canals that feed storm water runoff into Lake Houston.  This removal process shall be done within nine months of sediment removal of the Mouthbar at a rate consistent to the levels of reduction of the Mouthbar, subject to appropriate right-of-way agreements being in place.
Projects that Will Take Longer than 100 days

For these projects Tony will release his plans of how he will achieve these goals, dedication of staff and resources and a time line for each activity.  These plans will be listed on a Website with milestones and reporting progress every month in the same fashion as the website described above.  

  • Within six months, identify and prioritize removal of major and minor system restrictions including debris and sediment on the East and West Fork of the San Jacinto River and Lake Houston in partnership with the SJRA, CWA, The State of Texas, the US Federal Government and other governmental and NGOs as necessary for a plan of a long-term maintenance plan to manage the constrictions and storage reductions that sediment and debris is causing for the Lake Houston region, that may include long term maintenance dredging if that is determined to be the best solution.  These plans shall contain projected dates of the start of execution.
  • Provide guidance and support to Harris County Commissioner Court and HCFCD to prioritize and fund projects that increase the capacity of the Bayous through partnerships with HCFCD to allow for water to efficiently move into the Gulf of Mexico.
  • Identify a plan for routine maintenance for overgrown and sediment filled ditches within COH ROW. Prioritize by complaints filed via 311, and/or potential 311 Website, as well as investigate flooded areas identified by the above referenced community groups.
  • Ensure completion of the projects that Public Works SWAT team has identified and forecast out future projects.
  • Identify a work group to outline a plan for the creation of dynamic storm water models that are integrated with HCFCD Bayou/creek models to ensure we understand how the system is draining. This will identify areas that an integrated sewer/ditch and bayou improvement plan is needed.
  • Re-evaluate the storm drainage/curb and gutter criteria to align with current Best Management Practices (BMPs). Identify a plan with projected costs to design and improve existing open ditch systems to the concrete top elevations criteria.
  • Strongly encourage developers in the San Jacinto Watershed to leverage the Houston Incentives for Green Infrastructure Plan http://www.houstontx.gov/igd/ which launched in Aug 2019. Evaluate the success of the program and identify opportunities for improvement. Support Public Works incorporating Green Infrastructure design as a storm water management approach with projects.  
  • The COH shall exercise its expanded leadership role by:
    • Lobbying and advocating to the State of Texas (SoT) that the Aggregate Production Operators (APOs), commonly known as the Sand Miners, that operate in the San Jacinto Watershed, shall use SoT approved Best Management Practices (BMPs).
    • Lobbying and advocating to the State of Texas (SoT) and all the counties that have the San Jacinto Watershed in their boundaries for developers to use SoT recognized BMPs in storm water control.
Publishing Own Report Card

Tony commits to publish on a Website available to the public all of his stated plans published on https://www.tonybuzbeeformayor.com/issues/ as of 12/9/2019.  Also published on this Website will be a Report Card reporting on the progress of all of his promised plans updated every month.  There will be a phone number for you to call and a Website to ask questions about any of Tony’s plans and you will get answers.

Signed: (Tony Buzbee – see original above)

Dated: December 10, 2019

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/10/2019

833 Days since Hurricane Harvey