Flood ordinance was flawed

There’s no arguing that District G — the district I represent at City Hall — was harder hit by Hurricane Harvey than any area in the city. In addition to heavy rains, the Army Corps of Engineers’ continual release of water from Addicks and Barker caused thousands of west- side residents to experience more than 7 feet of bacteria-filled standing water inside their homes and businesses for over two weeks. Families were hurt. Homes were destroyed, including my home. For me, it was personal.

I voted against the revisions to Chapter 19, the city’s flood plain ordinance, which passed 9-7 last month.

These revisions, effective Sept. 1, regulate properties in both the 100- and 500-year flood plains. The fact this passed by such a slim margin is indicative of the problems with the revised ordinance. While some changes to current code are warranted, these revisions are an overreach. The revised ordinance will not do what proponents claim it will; it will not solve our flooding issues and it will be costly to citizens.

However, that doesn’t mean we can’t strive to improve these regulations and pass improvements, especially when FEMA releases new flood plain maps.

But to get it right, we first have to understand what we got wrong.

I objected to the revisions for many reasons.

First, I think we are passing the buck — the city has been underfunding drainage improvements for decades, and now we want to make everyone elevate. City Hall needs to take responsibility for flooding instead of pushing it onto homeowners.

Second, the data to support ordinance changes were extremely limited, especially in the 500-year floodplain. Out of 187,498 properties within the 100- and 500-year floodplains, just 31,822 properties, or 16.9 percent, were studied.

Even then, the city looked at homes that were impacted, not necessarily flooded. There is a difference.

Third, these changes will pass costs along to property owners. By how much? It is hard to tell since no economic analysis was ever performed.

Finally, Houstonians simply didn’t like the ordinance. Well over 95 percent of my constituents who voiced an opinion opposed the ordinance change. I had over 500 hundred emails, phone calls and text messages from constituents regarding the revisions and less than a dozen were in favor.

The city’s own survey found that only 14.7 percent of my district supported the revisions.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, my constituents’ interests and the interests of various business groups were aligned.

I say not surprisingly, because it makes perfect sense. My constituents are not going to build their own houses. They are going to hire builders and put their trust in those builders to do it right. They will also hire architects and engineers to assist them, and they trust their expertise.

So given everything that went wrong with the Chapter 19 changes, here’s how we can get it right when we inevitably revisit the ordinance.

Expand the study to other storms: Instead of limiting the study to Harvey, and only a portion of the properties affected, the better approach would be to expand the study to include many of the other recent storms to hit the Houston area. The solution is only as good as the data. Limit the data and you limit the solution.

Don’t use a one-size-fits-all approach: Some homes flooded an inch, others five feet or more. Some flooded for hours, others for weeks. Some flooded due to the storm, others flooded due to the reservoir releases. Each needs to be categorized accordingly. A large portion of properties that flooded in Harvey never flooded before. Many did not flood until after the water releases occurred. These properties have a low risk of ever flooding again, especially if we put in place the proper flood management infrastructure.

Prioritize areas of need: We used a shotgun approach when we could do better with a laser. If we had looked at more data more closely, we would be better able to pinpoint and prioritize the real areas of need. We could see those areas where mitigation is improving or deteriorating and act with precision. With infrastructure improvements come changes to the floodplains as such improvements usually reduce the elevation defining such floodplains.

Focus on infrastructure improvements: The Turner administration would be doing everyone a service if it focused on those areas in true need — not political need. If the data had been better collected and utilized, we would be better able to explain what needs to be done and why some projects can be delayed while others need to be accelerated. We must focus on infrastructure. We need to improve conveyance and detention and do so to maximize the efficiency of each.

With more time, a better, more comprehensive study would benefit not only property owners, but the city itself. That should be the goal for all of us at City Hall.