Equity Myth Buster: “Rich Neighborhoods Get All the Flood-Mitigation Funding”

A myth being promulgated in the Harris County Courthouse and certain low-income watersheds these days goes something like this:

• The FEMA Benefit/Cost Ratio used to rank grant applications for flood-mitigation projects favors high-dollar homes.
• That disadvantages poor, inner-city neighborhoods compared to affluent suburbs.
• Therefore, poor neighborhoods get no help and the rich neighborhoods get it all.

This post busts that myth. But it won’t stop activists from demanding more “equity.”

If you look at all flood-mitigation spending in Harris County since 2000, on average, poor watersheds receive 4.7X more funding per watershed than their affluent counterparts.

Analysis of Data obtained via FOia request

Myth Ignores Other Factors, Frequently Leaps to Wrong Conclusions

Like much of political discourse these days, the myth focuses on a narrow sliver of truth, ignores other factors, and frequently leaps to the wrong conclusions.

An analysis of Harris County Flood Control District data going back to the start of this century shows how far off it can be.

There are dozens of different ways to slice and dice the data. I’ve looked at most of them. And validated “dollars invested” with aerial photography.

Today, I focus on partner grants because they represent such a huge percentage of the flood-bond budget and because there is so much misinformation floating around about them.

And I will look at them from the standpoint of outcomes, not just processes.

Methodology for Analysis

For this analysis I obtained Harris County Flood Control District spending data going back to 1/1/2000 via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. I requested the data by watershed, decade, source of funding (local vs. partner), and type of activity (i.e., engineering, right-of-way acquisition, construction and more). I cross-referenced this with other data such as flood damage, population, population density, and percentage of low-to-moderate income (LMI) residents – all by watershed.

When considering grants, the percentage of LMI residents in an area takes on special significance. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants often require high percentages of LMI residents in the area under consideration.

In the charts below, you will see references to watersheds with LMI populations above and below 50%. Above 50% means more than half the residents in the watershed have an income LESS THAN the average for the region. Below 50% means more than half the residents earn more than the regional average.

Harris County has 23 watersheds. Eight have LMI percentages above 50% (poor). Fifteen have LMI percentages below 50% (more affluent).

When reviewing the charts below, pay particular attention to the italicized words: Total, Partner, and On Average. They represent three different ways to look at the same question: Does housing value disadvantage an area when applying for grants?

For this analysis, I focused only on the long term, since decisions on more than a billion dollars in flood-bond grants are still outstanding.

FOIA Analysis Contradicts the Popular Myth

One of the first things you notice when you look at watersheds above and below 50% LMI, is that the eight poorer watersheds have gotten more than 60% of all dollars actually spent on flood mitigation between 1/1/2000 and 9/31/2021 (end of the third quarter this year).

Because the allegation was that partnership grants favored affluent areas, I then wanted to see whether partner dollars went mostly to affluent or poor watersheds. The answer is poor…overwhelmingly.

The last observation by itself is telling. But because of the widely different number of watersheds in each group, I also wanted to calculate the average partner dollars per watershed in each group. This blows the “rich neighborhoods get all the grants” argument to pieces. Poor neighborhoods got, on average, 4.7X more.

This busts the myth. But digging even deeper into the data reveals two things: wide variation between sources of funding and within LMI groupings.

USACE Funding Skews Partner Totals

The numbers are skewed because of all of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) money in White Oak, Sims, Brays, Greens, and Hunting Bayous. Each of those watersheds affects strategic interests such as Downtown, the Port of Houston, refinery complexes and the Texas Medical Center. Protecting the oil capital of the world and the US economy merit military investment that trumps home values and benefit/cost ratios.

Halls Bayou: Digging Deeper

Halls Bayou on the other hand doesn’t have much military significance. It gets the average amount of grants from other sources, but has suffered some from benefit/cost ratios that dropped below 1.0 (meaning the costs outweigh the benefits) at times.

Despite that, Halls has received more partner funding than 16 other watersheds since 2000. Only two watersheds in the affluent group of 15 received more partner funding. See the chart below.

FEMA Considers More than Home Values, Not All Grants Come From FEMA

While it’s true that FEMA considers housing values as a factor in benefit/cost ratios. Benefit/Cost Ratios (BCRs) also factor in such things as:

• The number of structures damaged
• Threats to infrastructure
• Proximity to employment centers
• Need for economic revitalization
• Percentage of low-to-moderate income residents in an area
• Number of structures that can be removed from the floodplain by a project.

And not all grants come from FEMA. For instance:

• HUD offers 15 different types of grants. Many favor distressed neighborhoods and HUD often offers a 90:10 match.
• Texas Water Development Board Grants have their own criteria.
• USACE funds dozens of different types of flood-mitigation programs. Many support national defense, the national economy, strategic interests, the environment, and navigation.

So don’t settle for soundbites. They often mislead.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/30/2021

1584 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The post Equity Myth Buster: “Rich Neighborhoods Get All the Flood-Mitigation Funding” appeared first on Reduce Flooding.