Greens, Halls Bayous Get 26% of All HCFCD Flood-Mitigation Spending Since Harvey

Two watersheds that, according to a political narrative, have gotten no flood-mitigation spending have actually gotten the lion’s share.

Information, newly available through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request, reveals that Greens and Halls Bayous have gotten 26.1% of all Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spending. That’s out of 23 watersheds since Hurricane Harvey. This data reveals dozens of lopsided disparities and inaccuracies in public dialog. The popular perception is that flood-bond money is all going to affluent neighborhoods like those in Buffalo Bayou and Kingwood at the expense of low- to-moderate income areas, such as Greens and Halls.

FOIA Request Reveals Flaws in Public Narrative

Precinct One Commissioner Rodney Ellis frequently claims Greens and Halls are being discriminated against. He says residents in those watersheds are at the “back of the bus” and if commissioners don’t fix that, “We’ll have blood on our hands.”

To see how bad the problem was, I submitted a FOIA request in early March. But spending data shows Halls and Greens already get far more than their fair share of HCFCD spending while more affluent neighborhoods get far less.

You could examine the data provided dozens of ways (and I will). But for the purposes of this post, I’ve focused on four watersheds – two each on opposite ends of the economic spectrum: Halls and Greens vs. San Jacinto and Buffalo Bayou, because these are mentioned most frequently in Commissioners Court. Here’s where they rank among the other watersheds.

Highlights of LMI Neighborhoods

Harris County tracks expenditures in 23 watersheds. Halls and Greens Bayou watersheds contain large percentages of low-to-moderate income (LMI) households. Here’s how they rank against other watersheds.

• Halls ranks as the 16th largest watershed in Harris County, but 3rd in spending per square mile since 2000. HCFCD has spent more than $3 million per square mile in the Halls watershed.
• Halls has the 10th largest population of any watershed but ranks 4th in dollars per capita received.
• Greens ranks #3 in spending since 2000 and #1 since Harvey. It’s the 3rd largest watershed and has the 4th largest population.

Of the 23 watersheds in Harris County, Halls and Greens received 19.8% of all HCFCD spending since 2000 and 26.1% since Harvey. But they comprise only 11% of the county.

That’s hardly nothing. And hardly “back of the bus”!

Highlights of More Affluent Watersheds

While those watersheds have gotten more than their fair share of spending, Buffalo Bayou and the San Jacinto watershed, especially Kingwood within it, have gotten less than theirs.

• The Buffalo Bayou watershed has the 2nd highest population in the county, but ranks 21st in dollars received per capita.
• The San Jacinto watershed ranks #1 in size (by a wide margin). Yet the San Jacinto watershed ranks only 16th on the list of dollars invested per square mile since 2000.
• The San Jacinto ranks 8th in population, but only 13th in dollars invested per capita.

Keep in mind that Kingwood, a favorite target of Mr. Ellis, is only a small portion of the San Jacinto Watershed.

• Kingwood has never had a HCFCD-led capital improvement project until Commissioners voted to purchase Woodridge Village in March 2021.
• Nor has it ever had a joint HCFCD/Federal capital improvement project.

Of the 23 watersheds in Harris County, Buffalo Bayou and San Jacinto received 11.86% of all HCFCD spending since 2000 and 15.9% since Harvey. But they comprise 17% of the county.

More Comparisons Between Low- and High-Income Watersheds

Beyond the rankings above, when you compare these watersheds to each other, several things jump out.

Since 2000, HCFCD has spent:

• 2X more per square mile in Halls than Buffalo Bayou ($3 million vs. $1.5 million).
• 5.4X more per square mile in Halls than San Jacinto ($3 million vs. $558,000).
• Almost 3X more per capita in Halls than Buffalo Bayou ($847.778 vs. $287.61).
• More in Halls than San Jacinto, which is 5 times larger ($128 million in Halls’ 42 sq. mi. vs. $120 in San Jacinto’s 215 square miles).
• $174 million more in Greens than in the San Jacinto watershed, which is larger.
• $156 million more in Greens than Buffalo Bayou.
• 2.3X more per capita in Greens than Buffalo Bayou ($671.69 for Greens vs. $287.61 for Buffalo).

Reasons for Imbalances

Two primary reasons exist for the imbalances:

• Many projects that started decades ago received only sporadic funding before the flood bond. Surveys and engineering reports may have been completed or “rights of way” acquired. But costly construction had been postponed until money became available. When voters approved the flood bond, those projects started immediately. Many were already in lower-income watersheds such as Halls and Greens.
• Then in 2019, commissioners adopted an “equity” prioritization plan that gave extra weight to LMI neighborhoods. It accelerated spending in LMI watersheds and delayed it in more affluent watersheds.

Numbers Contradict Narrative

Those who watch Commissioners Court are treated month after month to tales about how flood-mitigation spending has discriminated against people in LMI neighborhoods. Data does not support that.

Certain commissioners tell us over and over that FEMA benefit/cost analyses (BCA) favor projects in affluent neighborhoods because of their higher home values. They don’t. That argument ignores density, which can create higher value. For instance, an apartment complex with a hundred families might fit on the same amount of land as one single family home.

The FEMA BCA argument also ignores the fact that most federal dollars for low-income neighborhoods come from HUD, not FEMA. HUD dedicates 70% of its dollars to low-income neighborhoods. HUD also sets a minimum value on homes that is often much higher than their market value.

It’s true that poorer people are more socially vulnerable and can’t afford to recover from floods the way those in more affluent neighborhoods can. The loss of a car can mean the loss of a job. The financial inability to repair homes after a flood can lead to tragic health consequences.

But it’s also certainly true that low-income neighborhoods are not being ignored. Anyone who says they are is not looking at the data.

By focusing on false narratives, local leaders could be shooting themselves in the foot. Next in this series, I will compare voting patterns in LMI and affluent neighborhoods and discuss what that could mean for the prospects of future flood bonds.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/XX/2021

13XX days since Hurricane Harvey

The post Greens, Halls Bayous Get 26% of All HCFCD Flood-Mitigation Spending Since Harvey appeared first on Reduce Flooding.