Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

About Greg Degeyter

Greg is an attorney mainly practicing Social Security law. Law is a career change. In the past he was a meteorologist, and likes to joke that the career change means he has gone from a liar to a cheat. Before moving to Houston he was a precinct chair in Orange County, Texas, for a decade and briefly held the county party vice chair. In his spare time he is an avid student of tae kwon do, and is teaching himself leatherworking.

The Cost of Fragmented Flood Planning in Harris County

by 1 Comment

The Harris County Flood Control District is currently holding public meetings link to present its SAFER Study—short for Solutions for Advancing Floodplain Evaluation and Resilience. At the same time, the Texas Legislature is convening a special session where flooding and flood infrastructure are among the policy issues under consideration. The convergence of local planning and statewide policymaking makes this an important moment for reflection.

As some readers may know, I am a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society. My background in meteorology informs my perspective, but so does my deep concern as a Houstonian who understands both the personal and financial toll of flooding. My overriding concern is simple: flood policy should be driven by good science, good data, and a commitment to minimizing harm in the pursuit of protection.

Too often, financial interests supplant the common good. Take, for example, the proliferation of clickbait weather pages on Facebook. If they were named the Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe Clickbait Weather Page, no one would take them seriously. Instead, they adopt credible-sounding names and often use long range meteorological modeling data to project an unwarranted air of authority.

The same phenomenon can occur with consulting groups. To be clear, I’m not suggesting these firms have the same questionable motives as internet grifters – they do not. However, they create a similar air of credibility, which in turn shields flawed assumptions or methodologies from legitimate scrutiny. Well-intentioned policy veers off course when the underlying data is flawed, incomplete, or improperly applied. Unfortunately, what I observed in the recent SAFER Study presentation suggests we may be headed in that direction.

In the sections that follow, I’ll examine three critical areas of concern. First, the flawed use of precipitation data, particularly how named tropical systems have distorted the calculation of flood return periods. Second, the fundamental under-acknowledgment of how localized sheet flow feeds into river and bayou flooding. Third, the lack of coordination among political jurisdictions, which, despite relying on many of the same consultants, continue to operate in silos without a unified regional flood strategy. These issues are not isolated; they compound each other and together risk undermining a cohesive solution for flood control.

Misused Precipitation Data and the Weight of Outliers

One of the foundational flaws in recent flood planning stems from how precipitation data is being applied – particularly when it comes to rare, high-impact tropical systems.

When voters approved Propositions A and B to fund flood control efforts, the planning and modeling behind those proposals did not exclude rainfall totals from extreme named storms. Not all tropical systems produce 100-year flood events. Ike, Nicholas, and last year’s Beryl did not. However, Tropical Storm Allison, Hurricane Harvey, and Tropical Storm Imelda each exceeded standard thresholds: Allison exceeded the 100-year return period and approached 1-in-200-year levels in some locations; Harvey surpassed 500-year rainfall totals in many areas and even approached the 1,000-year mark; Imelda, while less publicized, approached 500-year intensity in some areas.

Including these outliers in baseline calculations distorts the final calculations. It raises the statistical average for what qualifies as a “100-year flood” and, by extension, expands the footprint of mapped floodplains. That affects everything: insurance rates, building regulations, infrastructure planning, and property values. In short, the models are overestimating risk in many areas – not because they’re broken, but because they’re anchored to extraordinary events that should be treated as anomalies.

Since the passage of those bond measures, HCFCD has transitioned to using Atlas 14 for precipitation data. This shift represents a good faith effort to improve accuracy by using the latest available data – but it unintentionally exacerbated the problem. Because Atlas 14 includes more data it better captures the statistical footprint of those rare events. Rather than balancing the models, it effectively locks in the elevated values – anomalies even among tropical system impacts in Harris County.

We absolutely need effective flood control measures – Harris County has seen too much devastation to argue otherwise. But these measures must be implemented at the lowest cost possible, both financially and in terms of collateral damage. Overinflated models lead to overengineered responses, which in turn lead to expensive and disruptive projects. Purchasing large swaths of land, displacing residents, or invoking eminent domain, while sometimes necessary, should never be the first option – especially when flawed data is driving the decision-making.

On the bright side, this is an easily addressed issue. Simply exclude Allison, Harvey, and Imelda and recalculate the 100-year floodplain. Harris County cannot regulate FEMA flood maps or insurance premiums, but it can control its own mapping and use a recalculated, more realistic floodplain for county-funded projects. We owe it to taxpayers, homeowners, and future generations to get this right.

Sheet Flow and River Flooding Are Linked

Flooding in Harris County generally comes in two forms: river flooding, which includes bayous, and sheet flow flooding, more commonly (and misleadingly) referred to as “street flooding.” While often discussed separately, these two forms of flooding are deeply connected. Any serious mitigation strategy must address both not in isolation, but as they are – a unified hydrologic system.

Here’s what happens when it rains: water hits the ground and is either absorbed into the soil or runs off if the precipitation rate exceeds the land’s absorption capacity. That excess water becomes sheet flow, which enters storm drains and ditches, eventually feeding into our rivers and bayous.

The amount of runoff is calculated by the formula Q = CiA, where:

  • Q = runoff rate
  • C = runoff coefficient (the only controllable variable)
  • i = precipitation intensity (often called precipitation rate)
  • A = area receiving precipitation

The C value is the only value that is influenced by urban development.  The value is often visualized through an S-curve, which reflects how quickly runoff moves into stormwater systems and, in turn, rivers. S flow determines how fast water reaches those systems, and if the systems aren’t engineered with sufficient acceptance and transport capacity, the result is urban flooding.

It’s not difficult to diagnose where the problem lies. If storm drains are full and water is bubbling up or backflow is visible from inlets or manholes, it’s a transport capacity issue—the system can’t move water out fast enough. If no such signs appear, the issue is more likely acceptance capacity—the system can’t take in water fast enough to begin with.

Effective flood control must address both. Flooded intersections serve as functional retention ponds, slowing water’s entry into the drainage network. The current “acceptable time window” for flooded intersections simply picks winners and losers.  The current plan is willing to accept urban flooding and the costs and impositions associated with the flooding.  That’s not an acceptable solution. However, addressing street flooding without considering how it accelerates flow into bayous impacts down flow conditions.

These systems are tied together, which brings us to a deeper, self-inflicted challenge: governance.

Jurisdictional Fragmentation and the Illusion of Coordination

The biggest takeaway from the SAFER Study meeting wasn’t a technical flaw; it was the glaring lack of coordination between political subdivisions when it comes to formulating a comprehensive flood mitigation plan.

That’s not to say coordination doesn’t happen. It does, but it’s inconsistent and fragmented. Cities, utility districts, and regional agencies often plan within their own silos, even though floodwaters don’t respect those boundaries.

This disjointed approach is often rationalized two ways: first, through political recognition of the jurisdictional limitations; and second, by saying, “we use the same consultants.” Neither excuse holds up.

Sharing consultants may create the illusion of coordination, but it doesn’t ensure that final plans are integrated or aligned. Each jurisdiction still defines its own scope, contracts separately, and executes independently—without a binding regional strategy. There may be meetings, but there is no master plan.

This problem is no longer academic. With $400 million in new federal funding recently released—alongside the existing county bond funds—we’ve entered the implementation phase. What we build now will either fix or cement the fragmentation.

The most disheartening aspect is that better coordination is possible now. County projects could be formulated with “bolt-on” compatibility to nearby urban initiatives. Urban projects could include hydrologic impact calculations and be temporarily delayed 30 days to allow the County to review and propose coordination strategies. This doesn’t require new laws.  All it takes is a cooperative mind set.

Some of that mind set already exists. Commissioner Ramsey’s office has expressed interest in discussions around these proposals. Even if only Precinct 3 begins to include bolt-on opportunities in their projects, it demonstrates that a simple mindset shift can bring us closer to real regional coordination.

We will never take politics out of flood control. However, adjusting basic standard operating procedures can move us closer to what should be our shared goal: a comprehensive, efficient, and minimally disruptive flood control system that protects lives, property, and taxpayer dollars alike.

 

A Meteorologist’s Perspective on the Hill Country Floods

by 5 Comments

First, let me be clear: this post isn’t written to diminish the tragedy of the recent flash flooding in Central Texas. The loss of life is horrific, and but for the timing—many summer camps between terms—it could have been even worse. My heart goes out to every family affected.

As a meteorologist, I feel compelled to address the political commentary that’s emerged in the wake of this disaster. I have been critical of cuts to NOAA and the National Weather Service, but let me be clear: those trying to link these floods to those cuts reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of both meteorology and, more importantly, the human decency owed to the victims at this time.

This wasn’t a failure of forecasting. It wasn’t forecastable. What happened in the Hill Country is eerily similar to what Houston experienced during Harvey: a tropical system—in this case, the remnants of Barry—became trapped and dumped copious amounts of rain over a concentrated area. In both cases, meteorologists could see the potential for heavy rain, but no responsible forecaster would or could predict the exact magnitude or location of the worst flooding ahead of time.

We have a duty as meteorologists to maintain public trust. Warning fatigue is real, and the chase for ratings has already eroded credibility when it comes to extreme forecasts. Issuing a forecast that calls for outlier rainfall totals without sufficient certainty doesn’t make us look bold—it risks undermining trust in all future warnings. And that loss of trust can cost lives when we truly need the public to act on clear, actionable alerts.

By the time the gravity of this situation was apparent, it was too late. In some places, water was rising at more than an inch a minute—in the middle of the night. This happened in an area where spotty cell service is seen as an asset, not a liability, making it even harder for warnings to reach those in harm’s way.

Six inches of fast-moving water is enough to knock a person off their feet and sweep them away. Add debris carried by the floodwaters, and for someone awakened by the flood, the situation was already not survivable.

Just like during Harvey, when the floodgates had to be opened, by the time the decision was made and the water began pouring through, the danger was already imminent. No alert system can outpace a flood that moves that fast.

For now, the focus must remain where it belongs: on recovering the missing, consoling those who’ve suffered unimaginable loss, and supporting recovery efforts. There will be a time for assessment when the situation calms.

When that time comes, we owe it to the victims—and to ourselves—to engage in that process with clarity, compassion, and civility. Blame and outrage won’t prevent the next tragedy. Practical planning, honest evaluation, and civil discourse will help to implement solutions to lessen the magnitude of the next disaster.

One area where we can and should do better is recognizing the mental health toll of disasters like this. The DSM-V needs to be updated to reflect weather-induced trauma reactions, which are just as real and impactful as PTSD. Helping survivors heal – not assigning blame -must be our priority in the weeks ahead

Equally important, we must steadfastly rebuke those who try to politicize this tragedy. We need to recognize the basic human dignity of those who are grieving, and show the same courtesy, respect, and compassion that we received during Harvey. Those who stoop to cheap political points need to be held accountable. We can and must do better as a society.

 

Reducing NOAA and NWS is a serious mistake

by

I support Trump and the effort to balance the budget. However, the significant reductions to NOAA by the administration will have serious consequences.

Balancing the budget is important, but gutting unbiased research and public information sources will have long-term repercussions. The free market isn’t the solution here—because the free market serves its own interests, not the public interest.

This issue separates those who truly understand the system from those just repeating political talking points. The National Weather Service (NWS) will still issue warnings as needed. Having run a radar during a severe weather outbreak, I know firsthand how fatigue can lead to human error. While computer-aided identification parameters and trained spotters (SKYWARN) help mitigate that risk, individual severe weather incidents within the overall event will be under-identified.

The bigger problem isn’t forecasting—it’s information dissemination and research. The NWS doesn’t chase ratings or clicks. It simply does its job, ensuring the public gets accurate, unbiased weather information. When gaps develop, they will be filled by those with financial incentives—fear-mongering social media “weather” pages that thrive on engagement, ad revenue, and media seeking ratings.

Even more concerning, reputable-sounding private entities will gain prominence. “John, a consultant for ACME Insurance, must be reliable.” But John is beholden to ACME and its bottom line. His forecasts may be accurate, but they will carry an invisible bias, even if he tries to remain objective.

The real harm, though, will be in research. Research won’t stop—it will shift. Without unbiased federal funding and government-employed scientists, studies will follow the money. Businesses will fund research that aligns with their interests, as they should. But this means fewer independent verification studies.

We already see this in the insurance industry. Laboratory-based hail impact studies, often funded by insurers, set the foundation for claim evaluations. But when real-world field studies tested actual hail impacts on hail pads, they revealed significantly more severe impacts than the lab studies suggested (presumably from microfractures in the lab generated hailstones created during the injection process). Despite this, the insurance industry continues to rely on the original lab studies in disputes, while the real-world research struggles to gain traction.

Now, apply this pattern more broadly. With NOAA’s research capacity gutted, industry-backed studies will dominate, shaping policies and public understanding. The lack of independent, government-backed verification will mean that whatever the private sector finds convenient will go largely unchallenged. The impact of these cuts won’t be immediate, but over time, they will distort how weather-related risks are assessed and responded to—until it’s too late.

89th Texas Legislative Session: Criminal Justice Reform

by

 

Criminal justice issues likely played a major role in the political shifts seen in Harris County. Public frustration over rising crime, slow-moving dockets, and a system that often fails both victims and defendants, has led to increasing calls for reform.

However, the crime problem didn’t develop overnight, and it won’t be solved overnight either. Long-term solutions require a mix of enforcement tools, streamlined legal processes, and anti-recidivism efforts. The Legislature has the opportunity to rebuild public trust in the system while maintaining fairness, efficiency, and strong public safety measures.

Public Access to District Attorney Offices Must Be Restored

One of the most overlooked consequences of COVID-19 was the elimination of walk-up public access to District Attorney offices. Before the pandemic, citizens could present evidence of crimes directly to the DA’s office—but many of these public access points never reopened.

With law enforcement overwhelmed by serious violent crime, everyday Texans must have the ability to report crimes directly to the DA when necessary.

Requiring the District Attorney offices to have a walk-up desk will increase crime detection and criminal apprehension.  An online portal could also serve a similar purpose, with the public being able to submit reports and supporting evidence in a secure online format with the District Attorney office able to review and decide whether or not to accept the case.

Restoring this access empowers the public while ensuring that low-priority crimes don’t slip through the cracks simply because law enforcement is stretched thin.

Also, if an outside governmental agency makes a finding that a crime likely occurred – such as Adult Protective Services making a finding of neglect or abuse, law enforcement must be obligated to make a report to the district attorney to see if they will accept the case.

Law Enforcement Needs More Tools to Stop Criminals

Law enforcement has been hamstrung by policies that make it harder to stop and apprehend criminals. One of the most effective tools in fighting crime is pretext stops, yet many jurisdictions have restricted or discouraged their use.

Programs like Houston’s requirement that businesses have surveillance cameras are great if they are actually utilized for crime prevention.

A standardized, statewide system should be implemented to ensure that surveillance footage is preserved and accessible for investigations. Many businesses automatically overwrite security footage within 7 days, causing critical evidence to be lost before law enforcement can review it. A centralized reporting system or automated footage preservation request could ensure that video evidence is flagged and stored when a crime is reported.

Programs like Houston’s Flock license detection program are essential to empowering law enforcement to identify vehicles involved in crime and initiate pretext stops to apprehend individuals that otherwise would not be caught.  Legislative support for these programs will yield a tangible increase in apprehension.

Expand Mediation Policies to Criminal Cases

Apprehension is only one part of the puzzle.  Not every crime is the same, and a one size fits all solution isn’t in the public interest.  Texas already requires mediation for civil cases to reduce court backlogs and encourage settlements—a similar approach should be extended to certain criminal cases.

Currently, victims do not have a formal voice in criminal proceedings—the District Attorney represents the state, not the victim. In many cases, forcing mediation could help resolve cases faster while also giving victims a voice and incorporating restorative justice measures to prevent reoffending.

How Criminal Mediation Would Work

Criminal mediation would allow a neutral third-party mediator to facilitate structured discussions between prosecutors, defense attorneys, and (when appropriate) victims. This process would not be an alternative to prosecution but rather a tool for reducing court backlog while promoting tailored resolutions. Cases involving first-time offenders, victim-consented resolutions, or minor non-violent offenses could benefit from structured agreements that include restitution, rehabilitation, or alternative sentencing options.

This would be limited to non-violent cases or cases where the victim of a violent offense consented to mediation.  For example, assault family violence where the victim wants the offender to get help rather than serve time.

The goal is to craft creative solutions with a focus on anti-recidivism solutions.  The requirement to mediate will force expedited case development increasing resolution efficiency.  This would not replace traditional prosecutorial tools, but it is an additional tool that can be used to lead to case resolution.  This would be especially helpful for cases where a criminal defense attorney is conducting the mediation and can come in and tell a resistant defendant that their expectation is unrealistic and help facilitate a plea that otherwise may not be forthcoming or nor available until the eve of trial.

Prioritizing Anti-Recidivism Measures

Reducing crime isn’t just about enforcement—it’s also about breaking cycles of repeat offenses.

Texas has already seen success with diversion programs that help nonviolent offenders avoid prison and reintegrate into society. However, there are still gaps in the system where small policy changes could have big long-term impacts.

Every county should have a program where individuals with a suspended or expired driver’s license is assisted with obtaining an occupational license.  While access to the occupational licenses have been increased by allowing Justice courts to issue the orders the Counties should be required to facilitate the obtaining of the licenses.  This allows individuals to drive legally and helps with return to work and integration into society.  Repealing the administrative fees associated with crimes also helps individuals break free of the cycle of driving without a license.

Probation programs should be directly tied into workforce development initiatives when possible.  This helps offenders break the cycle of repeat crime from a lack of job prospects. Whether it’s a direct interaction with the Texas Workforce Commission, or nonprofit organizations such as the excellent Between Jobs Ministry in Harris County a part of the probation process should either be gainful employment or helping with skill building to obtain employment.

Expanding Emergency Relief Dockets for Faster Case Processing

One of the biggest issues in Texas’ overwhelmed criminal justice system is the slow pace of case processing. Emergency Relief Dockets (ERD) have been used successfully, but their effectiveness is limited by staffing issues.  Justice delayed is justice denied, both for the defendant and the victim.  Some cases should go to trial, and those cases need to be handled in as efficient a manner as possible.

Simply having emergency relief dockets isn’t enough.  If they, too, become backlogged they simply become a new docket the elected judges get to send away the unsavory cases they don’t want to deal with.  This means care needs to be taken to ensure that sufficient ERC capacity is present to handle the needed caseload.

Some of this a courtroom availability issue, but some is a qualified individual to hear the case issue.  For example, many of the misdemeanor courts don’t have courtroom activity occurring in the afternoons and the impediment to having trials is a qualified individual to serve as judge.  Other staff is already present – hearing reporter, court coordinator, bailiff etc.

Obviously, having the elected judge hold as many trials as practicable is the best solution.  However, that’s already occurring much of the time.  A judge can only handle so many cases at a time before becoming mentally fatigued.  Measures need to be taken to ensure that the lack of judicial capacity isn’t the bottleneck.  While the legislature already allows for formerly elected individuals to serve as visiting judges this isn’t a sufficient amount capacity in some jurisdictions. A solution is to allow elected officials to nominate attorneys to serve as single case judges.  This could be done on a wheel basis.

Sitting judges and other elected officials should nominate qualified attorneys to serve as temporary judges for single-case assignments in ERD courts. To prevent conflicts of interest or bias, appointments should be rotational and case-specific, meaning no single attorney handles multiple cases back-to-back. Additionally, these positions should be unpaid to ensure that appointments are made based on legal experience, not financial incentives, and self reduces the applicant pool to attorneys who are seeking to participate for the purpose of the prompt, fair administration of justice.

Conclusion

The crime problem didn’t develop overnight, and it won’t disappear overnight either—but smart, targeted reforms can strengthen Texas’ criminal justice system for the long term.  Taking care to integrate the ability of individuals to report crime with alternative dispute resolution processes and increasing the number of individuals who can handle case disposition together will bring down crime over time.

89th Texas Legislative Session: Insurance Reform

by

I hold an all lines insurance adjuster license and am called to testify as an expert witness in court cases from time to time so this post is going to be more conceptual to limit the insurance companies attorney’s ability to use specific statements in this post in court proceedings.

Insurance reform isn’t a flashy political issue, a homeowners’ insurance crisis is brewing in Texas. Much like property taxes, skyrocketing insurance costs are becoming a major financial strain on families.

Republicans have an opportunity to get ahead of this issue, demonstrating that they are proactively addressing the economic concerns of everyday Texans. Failing to act now could result in higher costs, more policy lapses, and a full-scale crisis that demands reactionary solutions later.

The problems with Texas’ insurance market stem from two major issues:

  1. The increasing costs of policies
  2. The difficulties homeowners face when disputing claims

The Legislature needs to act on both fronts to create a more stable, affordable, and fair insurance market in Texas.

Addressing the Cost Side: Reducing Premiums and Risk Exposure

Texans are facing unprecedented increases in home insurance premiums. If left unchecked, rising costs will wipe out the benefits of property tax relief, leaving families in the same financial position despite tax cuts.

This may be one of the rare instances where state economic intervention is warranted—not through overregulation, but through strategic policy changes that stabilize the market and reduce risk exposure.

The premium cost increases are necessary given the payouts that have occurred in recent disasters.  However, the trajectory is unsustainable.  The problem lies both with the unique nature of the Texas Fair Plan Association, as well as overall need to address ongoing baseline issues that are causing the increasing claims and claim amounts.

  1. Expanding Texas Fair Plan to Reduce Risk Allocation

The Texas Fair Plan Association (TFPA) is the insurer of last resort—designed for homeowners who cannot find coverage in the private market. However, restricting access to the Fair Plan has artificially increased costs, much like how Obamacare limited private plan options and caused premiums to spiral.

Expand Texas Fair Plan eligibility to spread risk more evenly, preventing high-risk homeowners from disproportionately inflating costs for private insurers.  One significant risk homeowners face is they are only able to obtain actual cash value policies.

Require other insurers to accept a portion of TFPA insureds the issue of risk spreading also works in the reverse.  Why should other carriers be able to reap the benefit of not having to insure the highest risk properties?  While TFPA will still remain necessary other carriers shouldn’t be able to benefit without contributing to the high end of the overall risk pool.  When premiums were reasonable this argument didn’t make sense.  In the current premium spiral the sequestering of properties to TFPA makes less sense.

Ensure TFPA remains solvent through state-backed risk mitigation pools to prevent future financial instability.  If other carriers were compelled to accept a portion of TFPA insured the mitigation pool would also apply to the other carriers on the designated properties.

Increase coverage options to reduce the number of uninsured homes, ensuring fewer uncompensated losses that ultimately drive up rates for everyone.

  1. Strengthening Texas Fair Plan Dispute Resolution

While expanding TFPA (or creating alternatives) is necessary, the system must also be reformed to ensure fair claim handling.  TFPA is already legislatively favored.  This should have reciprocal standards of fair dealing and accountability.

  1. Long-Term Risk Reduction Strategies

Just like state intervention in water resources is needed to prevent a future crisis, Texas must take protective measures now to reduce insurance risks over time.

Sea Walls & Flood Mitigation – Protect coastal and flood-prone areas to reduce catastrophic insurance payouts.
Insurance Crisis Mitigation Pools – Create a state-backed risk fund to protect insurers from catastrophic losses, reducing premium spikes.
Building Standards – Increase minimum building standards and enforcement measures to ensure new homes are more resilient to severe weather, ultimately reducing future claims.  Also, standards must ensure that roofs are appropriately maintained and repaired or replaced as necessary. It’s a huge expense, but it also is a driver of premium increases.

By proactively reducing risks, the state can gradually bring down insurance costs over time without forcing insurers to absorb excessive losses.

Addressing the Dispute Side: Making Insurance Claims Fair and Efficient

For some homeowners, filing an insurance claim is just the beginning of a frustrating battle. Insurers often delay, deny, or underpay claims, knowing that homeowners have few immediate legal remedies.

Texas must reform the dispute resolution process to ensure that policyholders can quickly access the benefits they’ve paid for.

  1. Creating Special Insurance Courts for Faster Resolutions

Currently, insurance disputes enter the same civil court queue as every other case, leading to long delays in claim resolutions. This is unacceptable—a home is often a person’s most valuable investment.

Establish dedicated insurance courts with handle homeowners’ insurance cases.  We already have drug courts, emergency relief docket courts, veteran courts etc on the criminal justice side of the judicial system.  It’s time to implement insurance courts for insurance claims not involving personal injury elements.

  1. Enforcing Deadlines & Imposing Consequences for Delayed Claims

Insurance companies must be held accountable when they fail to meet processing deadlines for valid claims.  This is especially necessary because they are unilaterally able to obtain an extension on claim processing deadlines.  Failure to meet a deadline means that they both missed the deadline and either did not obtain the extension or missed the extended deadline.

Automatic penalties for insurers who miss claim deadlines.

Automatic increase to loss of use provisions if the claim process obtains an extension or misses a deadline.  This will expedite claim processing, and ensure the insured is not harmed when claim processing delays occur.

Stronger enforcement of existing bad faith laws.

  1. Strengthening TDI Oversight: Cracking Down on Bad Faith Adjusters

Most insurance adjusters are honest professionals, but a small percentage cause outsized harm by engaging in bad faith claim practices.

The Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) needs to be strengthened to ensure that bad actors face real consequences.  While the Insurance Code already requires carriers to report complaints against their employees this has no oversight mechanism, and insured do not know about this requirement.

Create automatic administrative penalties for carriers whose adjusters are found to have acted in bad faith.  The penalties will be redistributed to the carriers insureds every year.

Expand TDI’s enforcement authority to penalize adjusters found guilty of patterned misconduct.

Create a public database of repeat bad faith offenders to increase transparency.  Again, most adjusters are honest.  This will flush out the ones who are not.

Most adjusters do their jobs correctly. But the few who don’t create widespread harm—and TDI oversight must be strengthened to remove them from the industry.

  1. Require Insurance Carriers to deposit a percentage of underpayment findings into a state administered fund.

This encourages carriers to self-correct.  Requiring insurers to deposit a percentage of underpayment findings into a state stabilization fund would deter wrongful claim denials while creating a financial reserve to stabilize future market volatility. If ABC Insurance underpays a claim by $50,000, they would be required to deposit $5,000 into the fund. This system discourages bad-faith claim practices by making unjustified denials financially costly, while generating reserves that could be used for premium stabilization, consumer relief programs, or emergency insurance crises.

If Texas acts now, it can prevent an insurance crisis before it spirals further out of control. By addressing costs, improving dispute resolution, and reducing risks, the state can create a stronger, more stable insurance market that works for both homeowners and businesses.

89th Texas Legislature: Using the Rainy Day Fund for Economic Growth

by

The Texas Rainy Day Fund is one of the largest in the nation, and while its primary purpose is to act as a financial cushion during downturns, it could also be used strategically to generate long-term economic growth. If managed correctly, investments from the Rainy Day Fund could generate new revenue streams that help fund future property tax relief, reduce the need for new debt, and support vital infrastructure projects like water distribution.

The challenge is balancing economic efficiency with conservative principles of small government. If the state can increase resource efficiency and revenue without meaningfully expanding bureaucracy, it represents a prudent and responsible use of government power—one that strengthens Texas’ financial future without increasing taxpayer burdens.

This concept isn’t entirely new—Texas already partially funds public education through oil royalties. The question is how we can expand this model to maximize revenue generation without sacrificing core conservative principles.

Economic Efficiency vs. Small Government

One of the challenges conservatives face when discussing state-led economic initiatives is the tension between economic efficiency and small government.

Conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility and limited government intervention.
We also value resource efficiency and maximizing economic potential.

These two ideas are not mutually exclusive—Texas can invest in state-managed revenue generation without expanding government oversight or increasing regulatory burdens. The key is strategic investment in assets that are already part of Texas’ economic foundation.

Opportunities for Revenue Generation

The state has access to valuable natural resources and commodities that could be leveraged for profit and economic growth. Some easily supportable options include:

  1. Buying and Selling Oil on the Open Market

Texas already generates significant revenue from oil royalties, but the state could take a more active role in commodity trading by purchasing and selling crude oil on the open market.

When prices are low, Texas could buy oil and store it, selling it later when prices rise.  This would be a variation on the strategic petroleum reserve on the national level.  Only it will be for profit rather than for political and security reasons.

The state could also develop partnerships with major energy firms to create strategic reserves that generate profit while ensuring energy security.

This would not require additional taxation—just smarter management of existing resources.  The state already has the knowledge to do this effectively, and already has business in the state that are experienced with implementation.

This also has a collateral effect of stabilizing oil prices, which helps Texas producers remain competitive during market downturns. By leveraging existing state expertise in energy markets, Texas can increase revenue while supporting an industry that drives a significant portion of the state’s economy.

  1. Investing in Nonperishable Commodities (Cotton, Rice, Cattle Futures, etc.)

Texas is a major producer of cotton, rice, beef, and other agricultural commodities. The state could create a reserve investment fund that buys and sells nonperishable commodities on the open market.

This stabilizes local markets, ensuring Texas farmers and ranchers have a steady demand for their products.

It creates a secondary revenue stream that could help reduce reliance on traditional tax revenue sources.

  1. Leasing State-Owned Land for Commercial Development

Texas owns millions of acres of land, much of which is underutilized. Instead of selling off public assets, the state could lease land to private companies for:

Renewable energy projects (wind, solar, and natural gas expansion).

Tech and manufacturing hubs to attract business investment without excessive tax incentives.

Commercial agriculture operations that generate ongoing revenue.

  1. Investing in Infrastructure That Generates ROI

Certain infrastructure projects—especially water distribution systems—have significant long-term economic value.

A state-run investment in water transport infrastructure could generate revenue while ensuring long-term water security for Texas industries and municipalities. Think Kinder Morgan, but for water—a state-managed pipeline system that facilitates efficient water distribution. This would not only create jobs and economic activity but also reduce long-term costs for farmers, energy producers, and urban centers that rely on stable water access. Texas already has the expertise and private sector partnerships to implement such a system efficiently.

Investing in logistics hubs, ports, and freight corridors would enhance Texas’ position as an economic powerhouse for global trade.  Think a state version of the Harris County Port Authority.

If done strategically, these investments could reduce long-term costs (and in the instance of a port authority reduce taxation) while creating revenue streams that ultimately lower tax burdens.

How this benefits the overall state economy

The fundamental goal of any economic stimulus program should be to supplement state income in a way that benefits Texas taxpayers.

These revenue sources could be used for:
Accelerating property tax relief without risking budget shortfalls.
Funding critical infrastructure projects without taking on new debt.
Investing in long-term solutions like water redistribution infrastructure—projects that don’t yet have strong political support but are necessary for Texas’ future.

The key takeaway is that Texas has the economic resources to generate revenue without raising taxes or expanding government power. The Rainy Day Fund could be used not just as a financial safety net, but as a tool for responsible economic growth.

Conclusion: A Conservative Approach to Economic Stimulus

The Texas Legislature should consider smart, limited investments that turn existing state assets into revenue-generating opportunities.

Strategic commodity investments could create a stable revenue stream that reduces reliance on property taxes.
State-owned land leases and infrastructure projects could fund themselves while enhancing Texas’ economic competitiveness.
Water infrastructure and logistics development could ensure long-term stability while supporting Texas’ continued growth.

This approach doesn’t expand government—it makes better use of existing resources to serve Texas taxpayers.