[UPDATE: Since this blog was written, the Sierra Club's Lone Star Chapter, along with over 850 individuals, organizations, and political officials submitted comments on the draft plan. At a recent legislative hearing, the GLO announced they were making several changes to the plan based on those comments, including allowing political subdivisions to increase the number of applications, and encouraging more regional projects. A final version of the GLO plan will be submitted to HUD for review next week. Read our formal comments here. Stay tuned!]
After some delays caused by federal rules from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - the Texas General Land Office (GLO) finally released last month their draft “CDBG Mitigation Action Plan” on how to spend about $4.3 billion in federal Harvey and other storm recovery funds. They held hearings, and now they want public comments --but really soon.
Considering the scope of the plan (its at more than 300 pages) and the timing of the release around the holiday season, asking for public comments is too soon. Especially since they will only be taking comments through January 6th.
That’s why, earlier this week, an impressive list of community organizations including the Sierra Club signed onto a letter to the GLO asking for a bit more time.
In the meantime, you can read the plan yourself to get more familiar with what’s being proposed. You can read the summary here. But in case you’re occupied with other things during the holidays, we’ll highlight some key points for you.
The proposed State Plan takes the $4.3 billion and divides it into two big geographic buckets -- HUD Most Impacted and Distressed Areas ($2.5 billion) and State Most Impacted and Distressed Areas ($1.8 billion). It also creates three main program areas: Infrastructure ($3.1 billion), Housing ($500 million) & Planning ($344 million).
Within each of those program buckets, there are specific sub-areas and requirements for funding. For example, within Infrastructure, there are programs designed for Harvey recovery, ones designed for other state floods, regional mitigation programs, and even a coastal resiliency program, which can include: wetland protection, dune restoration, and even oyster reef enhancements.
While certainly traditional flood control projects are eligible, the state plan does allow for “greener” options like buyouts and so-called green infrastructure. This is essentially using nature-based solutions to flooding, and makes mention of both flood control but also beefing up water, wastewater and even electric grid resiliency.
Other important programs include the “Resilient Home Program,” which can assist homeowners rebuild The homes, however, should be a showcase for more resilient residential construction practices, as well as the “Resilient Communities Program.” This program emphasizes the adoption and implementation of policies that not only reflect local priorities but will have long-lasting effects on community risk reduction., This money could be used to help communities develop, adopt and enforce model building codes that promote resiliency, for example
Why is there only $500 million for housing?
While there is some funding available for housing -- including the aforementioned Resilient Home Program -- there is a separate State Action Plan, including specific City of Houston and Harris County plans on housing recovery as part of a previous allotment of federal funds (over $5.6 billion) released last year. Those plans can be accessed here.
What do people think about the plan?
Some are concerned the plan does not address equity issues sufficiently. There is a requirement that at least 50% of the funding overall be used to help “Low-and-Moderate Income” communities, given how difficult it is for certain populations to access flood insurance, FEMA, and other funds, some feel it is not sufficient.
And because of “averaging” across counties, projects that don’t actually benefit working Texans could be approved. The particular methodology used by the GLO -- a cost-benefit ratio -- has come under criticism as discounting certain communities from future access of the funds.
In addition, many Houston-based organizations as well as figures like re-elected Mayor Sylvester Turner and Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis believe the plan shortchanges Houston and Harris County.
But how?
The plan limits every political subdivision to a maximum of three projects, each of which can be no more than roughly $100 million. It counts against you if you are part of a regional project. For example, if the City of Houston had 3 identified projects, but also wanted to do a joint project with Harris County, or a local Municipal Utility District, they could not get reimbursed from the federal grants. On a practical level, this could have the impact of discouraging cooperative and regional projects.
At a recent public meeting, Mayor Turner noted that more than half the costs of the Harvey Storm and the largest number of people impacted by Harvey were in Harris County, and yet the maximum amount of mitigation funds they could access would be only $340 million out of $4,298,189, or roughly eight percent.
Commissioner Ellis raised a similar concern, but also raised concerns about allowing each eligible entity access to a project before a second project from the same entity can be approved – stating that this will be too onerous and will lead to delays and inefficiencies.
Also of concern to many organizations is the use of “cost-benefit” ratios. Because the GLO’s proposed methodology looks at percentage of population and number of people impacted, it could lead to underserved communities, especially if they are not as densely populated or own property that is seen as not having as much value.
What does Sierra Club think of the plan?
We are consulting with our partners in the Texas Living Waters Project on developing joint comments, but also with our friends in the Houston area, like the HOME Coalition and the CEER coalition, as well as with energy efficiency and resiliency advocates.
We believe that there is much good in the plan, but it lacks clarity, and could be strengthened by emphasizing equity, the use of natural solutions to flooding, and resilient communities that require more than meeting existing building code standards. While “green infrastructure” is allowed, there is no guarantee that traditional flood control projects won’t dominate funding proposes.
Some of the “resilient” options are not as strong as they could be. For example, the “Resilient Communities Program” only requires that an entity work to develop, adopt and implement that building codes that meet or exceed the 2012 IRC (International Residential Code).
However, at a time when the Texas Department of Insurance is considering the 2018 IRC as requirements to obtain windstorm insurance, when the state of Texas has already adopted the energy chapter of the 2015 IRC, and the International Code Council is looking at expanded 2021 codes that require readiness, having requirements that harken back to 2012 is already outdated.
The GLO State Plan is an opportunity to move Texas forward on equity, greener infrastructure, more resilient building standards and communities, and to look at a better electric grid and other traditional infrastructure. Hopefully, they will give the community time to comment and make it better.