In 2010, Stephen Costello, Annise Parker, Brenda Stardig, and other politicians sold the rain tax as a mechanism to improve drainage and reduce flooding in Houston. On the weekend of April 15, 2016, the city experienced the second catastrophic flood in the last year. Many families in the Meyerland area were just getting back into their newly repaired homes when the Tax Day flood hit our community. Social media and our local media outlets filled our screens with tragic stories and pictures. And, the City of Houston and Mayor Sylvester Turner decided to respond to this tragedy with a surreal gut punch – Stephen Costello will serve as the city’s Flood Czar.
Just when we thought we had said adios to Costello, he returns to fix a problem that he claimed to solve with the rain tax. Costello, et al. led the most disingenuous and fraudulent political campaign ever seen around these parts – and that is saying something. Thankfully, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the rain tax ballot language was fraudulent.
Remember this guy from the Prop1 campaign?
Houston floods. It always has and always will. Much of Houston’s history is timed by flooding events. Just think about your lifetime. Alicia. Ike. Allison. Memorial Day. Now, Tax Day.
Meteorologists and hydrologists often refer to the one hundred year floodplain, which is a flood event that has a one percent possibility of occurring in any given year. So, why are we experiencing one hundred year flood events with such frequency? There is an answer. Of course, the deceitful rain tax campaign never told you this information.
The Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) is a governmental entity and you pay a tax for it. This county agency is responsible for flood mitigation in our area. So, Harris County is responsible for maintaining our streams and bayous NOT the city.
Houston is broken into different watersheds and the study of the different watersheds is key to understanding Houston flooding. The most studied watershed in our region is the Brays watershed. I say this because of the work of Dr. Philip B. Bedient from Rice who sought to correctly identify the watersheds and build an alert system for the Texas Medical Center, which is in the Brays watershed.
The study of a watershed system is a detailed analysis of the drainage system of a particular watershed. The variables of how a watershed system works includes rainfall amounts over the watershed, barriers to drainage, drainage capacity of a system, and saturation.
The idea and thought behind a flood alert system was to give people notice of an impending flood event. The damage done to the Texas Medical Center in Tropical Storm Allison was enormous, think billions. Dr. Bedient had an alert system in place that day; but, because of the newness and the late hour when Tropical Storm Allison overwhelmed the watershed, it was not successful in preventing the massive damage that occurred. Many of the flood gates were left open. While there was a lot of finger pointing by the political and TMC administrative types, the system did work as designed. The system Bedient designed knew that the Texas Medical Center was going to flood before it occurred. Notice of an impending flood can save billions in damage. Dr. Bedient’s revolution was a turning point in our flood history.
His model is now used by Harris County emergency management types to warn and deploy forces when flooding is likely. Dr. Bedient’s work ultimately developed into the Harris County Flood Warning System.
I became interested in Dr. Bedient’s work after Tropical Storm Allison. As the Immediate Past President of the Braeswood Place Homeowners Association, I sought answers and solutions for the over 400 homeowners in Braeswood who experienced flooding during Allison. At that time, I convinced myself that surely an engineering fix was available. Although I was right, I had no idea at the time that the answer was almost incalculable in terms of cost. Neal Meyer wrote about this recently in his post in Blog Houston and was entirely correct.
I remember finding Dr. Bedient’s office and I told him where I lived and my interest. He knew my neighborhood well because of his detailed analysis of the Brays watershed. It was above the Harris Gully where he mounted cameras to actually see the major drainage outlet for the TMC. Dr. Bedient pointed out the barriers we had protecting Braeswood Place. One example is the railroad track that trapped water to our west but flooded Bellaire. Another example is the low bridge on 288, which acts as a dam backing water up into the Texas Medical Center – a design flaw by TxDOT. During the Tax Day flood, 288 flooded again. The flooding generally starts at the bayou and the bridge design flaw shuts down 288 rather quickly during flood events along Brays and cuts off access to the Texas Medical Center from 288. The system where you live will have unique characteristics too.
The most important thing I learned from Dr. Bedient is that the floodplain will change as the watershed is built out. It’s going to rise and flood faster the more impervious surfaces are built in a watershed. I remember Dr. Bedient saying that Brays Bayou itself was built to move the water out for a one hundred year storm assuming 40{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the watershed was built out, which was done in the 1950’s. Now, 95{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the watershed is built out, which means that the base flood elevation is rising and people who once thought they were out of the floodplain are now in it. A calculation is made after each flood and a new determination is made as to the new location of the floodplain; but, this does not mean new flood maps are drawn after each new determination. These are often contentious and political fights. The City of Houston wants people to rebuild in Meyerland and Braeswood Place because there are a lot of property tax dollars from those neighborhoods flowing into city coffers.
The latest flood impacted two new or little known watersheds, Cypress Creek and Little Cypress Creek. Over four inches an hour will overwhelm our watersheds. People who have never experienced flooding before were left wondering how this happened. It happened because the watershed was overwhelmed and the new impervious surface coverage is exasperating the problem. Think about an overflowing bathtub and not draining fast enough.
Many of the homes affected by the rise of Cypress Creek and Little Cypress Creek did not exist ten years ago. The most studied watershed is Brays followed by Buffalo Bayou. Buffalo Bayou was dealt with years ago with the construction of the Barker and Addicks reservoirs. Make no mistake, the flooding would have been disastrous if these two reservoirs did not exist. Both the Addicks and Barker dams do their job and have done so for years.
I always find it interesting how the media and politicians react to flooding. While Stephen Costello is the father of the rain tax, he needed help in this quest. Council Member Brenda Stardig made the motion for the City of Houston enabling legislation for Prop1. Meyerland has seen disastrous flooding twice since Prop1 was created. Many Meyerland residents who flooded in Allison believed Costello’s nonsense. Also, the ballot language was misleading – the Texas Supreme Court concurs. More importantly, Harris County is in charge of flood control. The city, at most, is responsible for water in their streets. It is clear that the rain tax was nothing more than a money grab for contractors and city folks, which is why I and a number of other folks fought hard to stop Prop1. Now, the Prop1 funds are being used for everything but flood control, mostly city salaries.
People need to understand that Costello and his engineering company represent developers and businesses who are building out the watershed. This, of course, is making flooding worse in Meyerland. Costello’s job is to go into city hall and convince city engineers, who may be paid with rain tax funds, that his client’s projects will not cause flooding. So, when you think of Stephen Costello as the Flood Czar, you are looking at the guy who has caused a lot of the flooding problems. To make the point clear, Costello has made a living of not mitigating for his client’s projects. Mitigation is expensive and if you hire the Flood Czar, you get the benefit of his graft and corruption in the city engineering department. The displaced water winds up in the homes in Meyerland or maybe your home if it floods. Costello needs to use his position to advocate for the suspension of the Prop1 tax for all homeowners whose homes have flooded since the rain tax was enacted. I would argue that the city should suspend the property taxes of flood victims altogether until they are back in their homes. When you see the Flood Czar ask him about this.
I don’t disagree with your argument or the science behind it. However, any plan regarding flooding needs to account for sheet flooding that is occurring. Could you send me an email so we can discuss further?
Thank you.
Nice post.
The most glaring fact you mentioned is Brays Bayou was not built for today’s development, there is already a plan to deal with that called Project Brays, but for some reason they cannot get the funding to complete it until at least 2022. In the meantime much more $$ will potentially be spent in disaster relief by federal agencies. It makes no sense – this project should have been expedited and fully funded *yesterday*. I know this project is not a panacea but it is going to help these areas a great deal.
Mike,
I agree and many delays to project Brays have denied relief to many. The COH bridges who need to be rebuilt to complete the project is frustrating. It would have been nice to use the Prop 1 funds for this purpose.
Well done sir. There has also been significant subsidence to go along with the development occurring in the water sheds. I have pitched the idea of promoting infiltration of the run-off into the vadose zone of the upper aquifer but it hasn’t reached the discussion level of the directors as far as I know. The biggest issues are wet lands and species impacts related to their projects. Having Harris County subsidize a chair at the Galvestion USACE office keeps things stifled quite well.
There are plenty of factual arguments for and against Prop 1, or as it is now called Rebuild Houston. The difference between those arguments and yours is that they are FACTUALLY based. Cherry picking arguments to suit the conclusion you want because you either profited from the campaign, or are aligned with a particular political faction is disingenuous. In regards to several of your “facts”:
1) Yes, the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) is charged with the responsibility of flood mitigation. But, as you mentioned their primary focus is the functionality of the streams and bayous. How exactly do you think the water gets there? What is the primary method of carrying water to the bayous? The City of Houston’s streets and its drainage systems. In order to prevent flooding the streets must be in good condition and the drainage systems must be well maintained and clear (both underground curb & gutter systems and ditches). The county can only move the water if its gets to their system. Hence the need for improved city street and drainage systems.
2) You are correct (shockingly) that as the city is built out the watershed will change. The primary cause being the increased amount of impervious surfaces. Hence, the FEE designed on the principle of a landowner’s share of impervious surface. Whether the $5/per month amount promised by the campaign was correct or not is not the issue at hand. The concept of paying for what you use is the correct concept. Now, if your “people” hadn’t insisted on “mega churches” like Second Baptist being excluded from paying a fee, maybe the campaign would have been closer to their promise. Instead mega churches get a free pass for their wasteland of pavement surrounding their stores and real estate investments.
3) Finally, the idea that Stephen Costello single handedly increased the flooding in the city of Houston is perhaps the most asinine statement of your “article.” But it is an example of the pillar strategy of your neo-conservative party, if you tell the same lie over and over again, your base tends to foolishly believe you. Can you show a specific, factual, concrete project or policy that Steve has proposed that has increased the flooding in this city? I’ll go ahead and answer that for you: No.
In closing, Prop 1 was implemented in 2011; give it some time. It was proposed as, and is a long-term solution to the city’s damaged and aging street and drainage system. It was never sold as an instant fix for our city’s historic flooding problems. Not to mention the fact that it is based on the conservative principle of eliminating debt by switching to a pay-as-you-go system. I agree that it has been mismanaged, and the dedicated funds need to be correctly allocated. But it’s easier to fix the program, and safer financially for the city to stick to the plan.
Gertrude,
So you do not deny that the Texas Supreme Court thinks your boy Costello is completely full of it.
Mr. Hooper,
You are nothing if not consistent. However, the goal of “staying on message” that political professionals like you bloviate (I use the term “professional” loosely in your case), is never going to win an argument. I know our current political system prefers simple messages, instant fixes and lacks the desire for higher cerebral function, but spewing lies repeatedly will never work to persuade a logical person and/or population.
In regards to your question, my answer is yes. I do refute that blatantly inaccurate, willfully ignorant, and meaningless statement. Another consequence of pandering to the intentionally ignorant is the oversimplification of reality. Basic facts aside (such as the Texas Supreme Court never mentioning Stephen Costello in their opinion, or that he had only one vote on council during implementation, nor was he on the official Rebuild Advisory Committee), I disagree with the courts opinion. The court based its decision on the idea that the “drainage charge” was the “chief feature” of the measure and was left out of the ballot language. I, and other supporters of Rebuild know that the “drainage charge” is merely one of several funding sources, and not even the largest.
But legal maneuvering aside, the issue of Prop 1/Rebuild Houston, was never about the actual policy for neo-con’s such as yourself, nothing ever is. Your endangered right-wing oligarchy is consistent, as you are, in one thing: inciting fear, conspiracy, and diverting discontent into willfully blind conservatism and nationalism. Scare people enough, they won’t want to take the risk to help their neighbor. Or tell people that you are protecting their grandchildren in restrooms by severely underfunding their education and rejecting much needed Federal education funding.
An optimist would believe that the willfully blind will one day regain their vision. That may be true in the future. But for now, those who use reason to guide their life will sit back and watch a large portion of the American population luxuriate in a lie. A lie you are perpetuating by intentionally misinforming people.
In five years what have they done with the money that would help prevent flooding? How many more years before I can ask the same question?
Neither,
Costello’s signature project has been Larchmont, according to him. It flooded Memorial Day, Tax Day, and yesterday.
The rebuild of Shepherd from Westheimer to West Dallas included all new storm sewers, as did the rebuild of North Main. A list of projects funded by Rebuild Houston is here https://www.rebuildhouston.org/images/pdf/rebuild_houston_projects.pdf
How does channeling more water into a bayou that is already full help stop flooding? Brays Bayou comes out of its banks. I have seen it do that numerous times. Even if it did not come out of the banks if the level of the water is lower than the top of the water on the bayou, the water is not going anywhere fast.
Use the money to help pay for raising and building new bridges along the bayous, then raise the banks will help. But the engineers like Costello will not get many benefits, will they?
Ross, who is the contractor on the never ending project on Shepherd. This company should never be allowed to do work in the COH again. Rome was built faster. So why does placing water into the bayou, which is presumed to be flooding a good thing. I will bet the next time Channel 11 floods they will not think this is a good idea. Making a neighborhood drain fast makes the bayou fill faster flooding the surrounding homes. Contractors though I am sure lined their pockets.
The contractor was Oscar Renda. It looks like it’s essentially complete. It was supposed to be complete last August, but these street projects often face hurdles. Remember when they were redoing Louisiana Downtown, and found that there were numerous items buried under the street, from telephone poles to railroad rails. Removing those items added a year or more to that project. Given the bad state Shepherd was in, plus the weather delays, I am not surprised it took longer. Details of the work are at http://www.oscarrendacontracting.com/Projects/images/ViewProject.php?catid=8&id=97
I am not sure why people object to redoing storm sewers. The new ones are huge, and provide additional storage of water before it runs into the bayous.
Removing bridges is problematic, as the Feds and HCFCD require some sort of study on the downstream impacts of structure removal or replacement.That’s why the railroad bridge next to the Yale Street bridge over White Oak Bayou is still there, as are the ancient railroad bridges in other places along that bayou.
Ross that is misdirect, who objects to storm sewers? Curious how they work as to detaining water, can you send a link to how that works?
So there are obstacles to removing bridges, guess that is what will happen with the Brays Bayou project and the widening of the Bayou, so that is another misdirect at least in regards to Brays.
What is the money doing to help prevent flooding? Simple question.
If you look at the Rebuild Houston website, it’s not all about drainage and flood risk reduction. Sure, the money collected from the drainage fee and developer impact fees goes towards drainage, but that’s not the only focus of the program. And, that’s as it should be. There seems to be some thought here that “if only we did X, all the flooding would disappear”. That’s naive thinking, because there is no single cause or cure for flooding. There is no magic bullet, it’s a bunch of incremental projects that ultimately reduce flood risk as much as possible.
Larger storm sewers allow for faster drainage of streets, and as an intermediate storage for water. A mile of 7ft square box storm sewer will hold 5 acre feet of water, in the event that it can’t all go directly into the bayou. The Shepherd project put new storm sewers in, replaced all of the man holes for the sanitary sewers, replaced a 12 inch water main, and replaced the crapped out paving with new, reinforced concrete roadways built to modern standards. overall, I call that a good thing, as Shepherd has been bad for the 40 years I’ve lived here.
Keep in mind that the City can’t do much, if anything, about the bayous. The bayous are the responsibility of the HCFCD and the Corps of Engineers. The City can’t rebuild the bridges without approval from those organizations.
Ross when one can’t win the argument change the argument, right? A 10 ft square would hold even more, what was there before? You want me to go on a fact hunting trip to prove that you are correct, why not provide direct links to those sites that substantiate your argument?
Jeff,
The campaign was very disingenuous, actually it was horrible. It was predicted by myself and others that the City would use the funds for other purposes. I do not think you will deny that they did. The City has not taken care of the roads and paid outrageous benefits using all the construction dollars formally used to maintained the roads. If you would have said that I would have probably helped you. Lying and misrepresenting the program was not a good idea. I am of the belief the City is way past go on filing for bankruptcy. An appointed federal administrator is the way to go.
The Rain Tax has done little to nothing to decrease flooding. It has allowed the City to continue it’s financially irresponsible ways for a little longer, although that dam appears ready to burst at any moment.
Just to address the facts in your post: Prop 1 has been in effect for 5 years – just how long do we have to wait (and pay and pay and pay and pay) for it to start having “an effect”?
According to you it has been mis-managed and it’s funds have been incorrectly allocated. Why? These have been issues from the start – has been broken from the very beginning? The people who advocated and pushed for the program (and tax) were the same people who implemented and ran the program – is it possible that they knew it was a scam and fraud from the very beginning? And, finally, just where exactly did all that money go? And, is it still going there?
Your heated defense of an obviously ineffectual (and possibly corrupt) program would cause an objective observer to question exactly who you’re “aligned with” and what might be your profit motive.
BRAES!! The bayou is named BRAES!! Somebody decided to spell it wrong and it has been repeated throughout the media. I have been here since 1981 and never saw “Brays” until about a year or two ago on Google maps. “Bray” is what donkeys do. Hmmm, maybe there is a connection here…
No, the Bayou is Brays, the neighborhoods are Braes. The bayou is named after James Bray, an early settler and surveyor. The bayou appears on maps as Brays forever, see the Houston maps from the early 1900’s at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/historic_tex_cities.html, in particular the 1935 map https://www.tsl.texas.gov/arc/maps/images/map0436.jpg
I have been in Houston since the 60s and it has always been Brays.