Tag Archive for: World War II

We Won World War II in Half the Time That It’s Taking to Start Harvey Flood-Mitigation Projects

3/1/25 – More than 60 flood-mitigation and disaster-relief projects identified after Hurricane Harvey have yet to begin. We won World War II in half that time.

Between Pearl Harbor and the surrender of Japan, 1349 days elapsed. But more than twice that number of days have elapsed since Hurricane Harvey in 2017.

Battleship Arizona
Battleship Arizona, December 7, 1941. Photo courtesy of National Park Service.

At 1349 Days after Harvey, I wrote a post entitled “It’s Official: Harvey Flood Mitigation Is Taking Longer than World War II.” The bittersweet post expressed disappointment about the lack of progress … tempered with hope for the future. But sadly, many of the observations I made then are true today. We still:

Around the time of my first World War II post, I also tried to understand why mitigation took so long. See these posts:

Bush provided numerous recommendations to cut red tape. But sadly, few, if any, have been implemented.

Failure to Prepare is Preparing to Fail

During the last Harris County Commissioner’s Court Meeting, we witnessed Commissioners struggling with this slow-motion disaster that has become a second disaster in itself.

They even spent a full hour requesting an update from HCFCD on the status of bond projects. Those updates used to be a regular monthly report.

Failure to prepare for flooding that you know will come is an invitation to heartbreak and misery. When the next flood happens, the damage will be self-inflicted.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/1/25

2741 Days since Hurricane Harvey

How to Speed Up Flood Mitigation Funding: Part II

Today marks the 1349th day since Hurricane Harvey. That’s also how long it took the United States to win World War II. To date, we’ve studied problems, made bold plans and, in a few cases, actually started constructing flood mitigation projects. But none of the $2.1 billion allocated for Texas flood mitigation by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has yet to work its way down to the local level.

The Townsen Overpass at US59 south of the San Jacinto West Fork during Harvey on 8/30/2017. Photo courtesy of Harris County Flood Control.

In the time it took us to win World War II, we’re still trying to line up flood mitigation financing.

Imagine What That HUD Money Could Have Done By Now

If Harris County Flood Control (HCFCD) had just half of that $2.1 billion, no one would be worrying about a funding shortfall for flood bond projects.

If HCFCD had just a quarter of that, it could more than triple the volume of flood mitigation projects currently under construction.

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) administers HUD flood mitigation funds for Texas. However, it has yet to announce the results of a statewide grant application competition for the first half of that $2.1 billion. Hopefully, those announcements will come this month. The GLO intends to hold a second competition for the second half of the money at a later date.

In fairness, the GLO is simply following HUD’s lead. Yesterday, GLO Commissioner George P. Bush suggested many ways to speed up existing flood-mitigation processes.

Below are thoughts contributed by others. To encourage their candor, I promised them anonymity.

I. Consolidation Under One Agency

One federal official suggested that all flood mitigation funds should flow from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), not HUD.

Rationale: Disaster relief is FEMA’s core competency. FEMA’s good at it. FEMA responds quickly. They are on location after disasters. They collect immense amounts of data, manage the National Flood Insurance Program, and have resources to get the job done quickly.

Right now, HUD, the slowest agency with the most rules and regulations, is responsible for helping the poorest neighborhoods, i.e., those that often need it most. Many think that’s unfair.

Dividing responsibilities among agencies creates needless bureaucracy, complexity, overlap and “stove piping.”

Stove-piping is where people in one bureaucracy are blind to activities in another. Eliminating the stove-piping requires cross checking data between agencies and programs, for instance to eliminate duplication of benefits. But that can also slow projects down.

II. Bring Back Earmarks in Some Cases

Another flood-mitigation expert suggested bringing back “earmarks” at the federal level. Earmarks were eliminated years ago to avoid spending on meritless projects in influential congressional districts.

Rationale: Not all earmarks are meritless. In cases of exceptional need, they can send money directly to cities or counties trying to build important flood mitigation projects. With proper safeguards against bogus earmarks, this idea could shave years off construction projects designed to protect people.

III. Partner with Army Corps More

Another expert suggested directing more money to the Army Corps for “project partnership agreements.” The Corps work directly with a local entity such as a city or county to help construct projects faster.

Rationale: The Corps was originally set up more than 200 years ago as a quick-reaction force for wartime. It now has the responsibility for managing the nation’s water infrastructure. The Corps has the turnkey expertise to gauge the merit of projects and the muscle to make things happen quickly.

HCFCD is currently working with HCFCD on projects in the Hunting, Brays, and White Oak Bayou Watersheds.

Previously, the Corps built the Antoine Stormwater Detention Basin in the Greens Bayou Watershed. HCFCD bought out the properties that comprised that basin and currently maintains the property.

IV. Establish a “Quick Reaction Fund”

A financial expert suggested establishing a “Quick Reaction Fund.” It would be activated by a Presidential Disaster Declaration and provide loans to get projects started quickly. The money could be used to jumpstart upfront activities, such as buyouts, environmental surveys and preliminary engineering reports. It could also be used to build entire projects that are needed quickly.

Rationale: Local entities often don’t have the money or staff to conduct these upfront activities. Buyouts can be especially problematic. They must often be completed before other flood mitigation activities, such as ditch improvements or detention ponds, can start.

“But we often have to wait 18 months or more for approval of buyouts,” said one engineer. “The vast majority of people can’t wait that long.”

So they fix up their homes and become more committed to them. Or they may just leave the area. Either way, this slows flood mitigation down even more.

A Forest Cove townhome just beyond the new Houston Parks Board San Jacinto Greenway. Harvey made the entire 80-townhome complex uninhabitable. Many residents left the area because they got tired of waiting for buyouts that are still not complete. That makes buyouts even more time consuming. Photo taken May 3, 2021.

The Quick Reaction Fund could help complete buyouts in months – instead of years – after a flood.

Loans could be paid back later by grant awards from the Feds.

V. Pass a Hazard Tax

To bypass the delays and uncertainties of competitive grant funding through state and federal levels, one local entity suggested passing a “hazard tax.”

Rationale: This would put local entities in charge of their own destinies rather than making them dependent on Washington and Austin for handouts. It would let cities and counties build up a war chest from their own tax revenues. Think of it as a savings account with a dedicated purpose – disaster mitigation. The money could be used to fund projects directly and quickly, or as the basis for matching funds when projects are less time critical.

Need Public Dialog

The rationale FOR the current system of competitive grant funding is to ensure the fairest possible distribution of available funds. But that requires defining and agreeing to eligibility rules upfront. It also requires upfront research, engineering, cost estimating and evaluation to prevent waste and fraud. All of that can take years. Hell, we’re still debating solutions to another Hurricane Ike (2008).

In my opinion, we desperately need a way to resolve such issues faster. I hope this series of articles will start a public dialogue among political leaders at all levels.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/9/2021

1349 Days after Hurricane Harvey, the number of days in WWII

It’s Official: Harvey Flood Mitigation Is Taking Longer than World War II

Sunday, May 9th will mark a special day in the history of flood mitigation. We will have spent more time responding to Hurricane Harvey – and accomplishing little – than it took us to win World War II. December 7, 1941 to VJ Day on August 15, 1945 was 1349 days. On May 9, 2021, it will have been 1349 days since Hurricane Harvey ravaged Texas and the Gulf Coast.

USS Arizona burning after forward magazine exploded, afternoon of December 7, 1941. Photo courtesy of National Park Service.

What Happened to American Determination and Unity?

After Harvey, we stood united in a sense of grief, loss and determination. We vowed to implement measures that would make us more resilient against such storms in the future.

In the Lake Houston Area, we had a three part mitigation strategy:

  • More upstream detention to help offset future releases from Lake Conroe.
  • Dredging to eliminate blockages in the rivers.
  • Additional flood gates on Lake Houston so we can shed water as fast as Lake Conroe sends it downstream.

Less in. Faster through. More out.

Grading the Report Card

So how have we done?

We Need More Emphasis on Action

Imagine if we had still been studying an appropriate response to Pearl Harbor after 1349 Days. Somehow, we’ve confused studying problems with fixing them. Thought has become disconnected from action, or worse, substituted for it. This is not America’s finest hour.

It’s not that we can’t mitigate flooding problems. It’s that we’re not organized to do so in a timely way. We study these things endlessly. We value perfection more than protection.

We have compounded a natural disaster with:

  • “Paralysis through analysis”
  • Divided responses on the federal, state and local levels that have no central coordinator
  • Contradictory priorities between upstream and downstream interests
  • Complex, often contradictory, organizational requirements.

We CAN Be the Solution

We need to re-engineer business processes to focus on what matters:

  1. Helping people rebuild their homes, businesses and infrastructure…
  2. And reducing the risk of future disasters…
  3. In the least amount of time possible.

That’s it. It’s that simple. The first two are clear statements of intent to unify purpose. And the third is a simple goal by which everyone involved can measure individual efforts.

In the coming days, I will publish a series of articles on how to streamline the business processes built up around flood mitigation and disaster relief. One will be authored by George P. Bush, the state’s highest disaster relief official. And another will be anonymous to allow several people to speak freely and frankly.

My goal is to stimulate a public dialog that can help us get closer to the goals listed above.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/7/2021

1347 Days since Hurricane Harvey