Vote No on Proposition A
Oct. 31, 2024
The Harris County Flood Control District is asking county voters for a property tax increase to raise an extra $100 million a year for maintenance operations. The increase would nearly double Flood Control’s annual budget (p. 80), not including the money from the $2.5 billion bond program approved by voters in 2018.
We’ve been monitoring the agency for ten years. Here’s why the vote on Flood Control’s Proposition A should be NO.
A Unique Agency. Little Authority. Destructive Maintenance Practices. Private Profit
First of all, it’s important to note that Flood Control, the only agency of its kind in the state, has very limited responsibility. It does not manage flooding throughout the county and has no regulatory powers. Flood Control only has authority over our local bayous and creeks. And with little else to do, they have gouged out, straightened and stripped most of our streams of natural vegetation, turning them into ditches and concrete channels. Unfortunately this only increases flooding and erosion, as many experts point out. (p. 155) The agency, which bizarrely misrepresents the causes of Houston’s flooding and dismisses effective non-engineering solutions, is not responsible for storm sewers, street or neighborhood flooding. And these new funds are not for useful new projects, like a stormwater detention basin. This money is exclusively for “maintenance.”
But Flood Control’s so-called “maintenance” of our streams and channels is not only outdated and backwards: it’s also damaging, destructive, ineffective, pointless, and possibly corrupt. The main benefit is to the private engineering contractors (rarely if ever hydrologists or scientists) who do the (beneficial) analysis and then the work and reap millions in profits. Over and over again.
Not to mention that these private engineering reports have been filled with errors that happen to justify their contracts: exaggerating the amount of sediment deposited in streams and misrepresenting the causes of local flooding (see below), among other major mistakes, including the bizarre claim in the past that there’s no sandstone and no vertical bank collapse, i.e. slumping, in Buffalo Bayou, which is actually what happens.
Clearing Debris
For example, contractors are paid by the pound to collect woody debris in and along the stream after storms. Thus motivated they cut down healthy trees, scrape the banks and bottom with backhoes, grab fallen trees that should be left against the bank to provide habitat and defend against erosion. All of this destabilizes the banks and bottom, leading to more maintenance contracts. It is hugely damaging to the ecosystem, killing creatures and vital habitat and ruining the natural system that slows and absorbs stormwater, cleanses the water and air, and keeps life flowing.
Dredging or Mining Sand?
Dredging streams can make flooding worse and cause more siltation. (See also here and here and here.) Left alone, streams naturally flush out sand and sediment, distributing it along the bank where it needs to go. But Flood Control’s stream dredging operations are not only counterproductive. They appear to be basically an undercover sand mining operation – in a world where valuable sand is in short supply.
root of the problem is bassackwards thinking and implementation of selfish republican ideals all over the county and state. please vote these morons out and watch how quickly things improve. no? just read all the articles here and on any mainstream (normal) media outlet regarding what we are doing globally and locally to destroy and foul our flooding nests. when will people wake up from the madness of the hate and anger of a misguided, gaslighted and self destructive political environment? i can think of only one or two, perhaps a handful of former “leadership” that has enabled this horrible dark climate in this country alone.
I already voted no. They do TOO much maintenance, and I am fixing my driveway, streets, and curbs. The 2016 tax increase did nothing.
Thanks for voting no, Diane. But you would know! Nice to hear from you.
Was this info circulated to the public prior to the start of early voting? Where has it been published or made available?
Thanks for your work.
Hi, Joanne,
I’m sorry but I put this out late. Multiple issues intervened. In the end decided better late than never. Wish I could have done it sooner. Have sent to local media.
So far only published on our website and through our newsletter.
Early voting had nearly finished by the time you sent this email. Probably most people have already voted. It would have been great if I had had this information sooner.
Yes, I am so sorry. Did my best. Issues intervened. Meant to get it out earlier. Decided better late than never.
Vote YES on Prop A
Flood control needs our support to protect residents in Houston from flooding.
Their authorization used to be 26 mil.
We spend 6x more on HCC than flood control. Let’s get our priorities aligned. We need both!
We are very fortunate in Houston /Harris county to have such a capable, well run and highly regarded agency.
Michael Huffmaster
I hope you read the article, Michael. This money is strictly limited to maintenance operations — maintenance work that is wasteful and damaging, not helpful.
Great analysis!
Good work! I voted against it.
I early voted & wish I had seen this beforehand. I regrettably voted yes & would’ve voted no had I known this. Crossing my fingers others will vote no.
Very sorry we didn’t get this information out sooner. Issues intervened. But better late than never. And hopefully many people will vote no.