ANALYSIS OF THE COMMISSION TO REBUILD TEXAS $61 BILLION REQUEST

(all quotations and data from Rebuild Texas: Request for Federal Assistance Critical Infrastructure
Projects, October 31, 2017 unless otherwise noted).

In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, Texas Governor Greg Abbott responded, in part, with the
formation of The Governor’s Commission to Rebuild Texas. The purpose of this Commission was “to
marshal state agency resources in order to coordinate the statewide effort to rebuild public
infrastructure damaged my Hurricane Harvey.”

On October 31, 2017, the Commission compiled and released a $61 billion Request for Federal
Assistance Critical Infrastructure Projects (“the Request”). Within the Request are 281 individual
requests made by cities, counties, and other entities that are “projects identified at the local and state
levels and reviewed by state experts using a consistent evaluation framework.” The introduction to the
Request goes on to state that the focus of this request is “delivering priority projects in rebuilding the
public infrastructure, including roads, bridges, schools, government buildings, and other public facilities,
as well as projects designed to mitigate the impacts of future storms…” Finally, the introduction makes
clear that “this request does not deal directly with housing needs that will be addressed through the
Community Development Block Grant program.”

REBUILD TEXAS PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA

The Commission relied on “a panel of experts selected from the state’s university systems” to review the
submitted local projects against criteria that prioritized those which contributed toward the “future-
proofing” of the Texas Coast. The categories of criteria evaluated:

• The degree of flood impacts avoided

• Economically Justifiable
• Technically Feasible
• Equitable & Fair
• Environmentally Sound

These guiding principles employed by the panel of experts resulted in the list of projects for which the
governor is seeking $61 billion in federal assistance. While the Request does include five categories of
Project Selection Criteria, with three to five criteria in each category, it remains unclear how these
projects were measured against them. There is no data cited or methodology which would allow for
evaluation of criteria such as “project is Non-discriminatory in its implementation,” “a range of income
levels and population sizes are protected,” or “project adheres to community development housing
goals.” Given that the Request seeks federal funding, it is crucial that these criteria be thoughtfully
employed in order to ensure that the best projects in the most affected areas are funded in an equitable
and responsible manner.

With the Commission’s intent and project selection criteria considered, TxLIHIS analyzed the 281
projects included in the Request to determine the extent to which these projects appear to respond to
the charges for the Commission, as well as respond to the needs demonstrated by an analysis of FEMA
housing assistance claims data.
METHODOLOGY

Rebuild Texas data

• TxLIHIS manually entered the data from the Commission’s request into a spreadsheet with
separate columns for each data point provided, as well as columns for project narratives.
• The projects were then reviewed and assessed to determine a project “type”, or category of
activity that the project proposed. Categories were iteratively developed, assigned, reviewed,
consolidated, and finalized resulting in 11 project types.
• Thirty-three projects fell into more than one category. These were summarized in to one
category for the purposes of this analysis so as to avoid “double counting” requested amounts.
This was done through a review of the descriptions to determine the primary purpose of the
proposal. Because of this, some activities are not represented in full within these projects.
• Eight projects were attributed to the location of ‘Texas’ because they were multi-jurisdictional
or regional projects.

FEMA Housing Assistance Data

• The most recent FEMA Housing Assistance data was downloaded for this report (current as of
November 20, 2017) from OpenFEMA. TxLIHIS aggregated this data to city and county levels to
correspond with the cities and counties from which projects in the Commission’s Request were
submitted.
• There were multiple records for many cities due to:
o Having multiple zip codes attributed to a city
 These were aggregated into a single record for each city
o Misspellings of the city name
 The multiple records generated by these misspellings have been aggregated into
a single, correctly-spelled record for each city that has at least one FEMA Valid
Registration. A few exceptions exist due to the misspelling being such that the
actual city name could not be determined, but these records were few and all
contained very few Valid Registrations (most had only one).
o Multiple counties erroneously attributed to a city
 For example: El Campo is located in Wharton County, however the three records
for El Campo are in Harris, Fort Bend, and Victoria counties.
 These errors included very few registration records, and were not corrected for
the purposes of this analysis.
• These records were aggregated using Pivot tables for Owner Registrations and Renter
Registrations. The multiple records remaining for any city were then manually aggregated by
summing the data fields for all records into a single record for that city.
• 70 City records exist where there were small numbers of Valid Registrations (96 total) that
received a total of 26 inspections and were approved for a total of $14,536 in Individual and
Households Program (IHP) assistance
o These were removed from Demographic—FEMA data analyses.
THE SUBMITTED PROJECTS

There are 41 declared counties that are eligible for individual assistance due to the level of damage
experienced from Hurricane Harvey. 1 Within these counties are a total of 243 incorporated cities.
However, only 23 counties and 87 cities and towns (some unincorporated) have projects included in the
Governor’s Request. Eight projects are either regional or multi-jurisdictional and attributed to Texas at
large.

Table 1: Total Requested Projects by Jurisdiction Type

PLACE TOTAL PROJECTS TOTAL REQUEST
Cities 193 $19,400,932,639
Counties 80 $33,154,871,400
Texas (regional) 8 $8,529,000,000
TOTAL 281 $61,084,804,039

For this report, the requests were reviewed and coded by project type(s) included in each request, and
from this review 11 project categories were created (definitions can be found in Table 3):

• Buyout • Wastewater Treatment Plants

• Elevation • Roads and Bridges
• Housing Assistance • Government Buildings
• Detention or Retention • Other
• Channel Improvements • Study
• Levees or Pumps

Using these categories, the requests were then analyzed by city and county. Table 2 and Charts 1 and 2
(below) show the total numbers of jurisdictions that requested different types of projects. It is not a
total number of individual requests, which in some cases a city may have made multiple requests for
projects under a particular category.

The Commission introduces the concept of “future-proofing”, which is defined as “valu[ing] both
projects that restore the infrastructure to the condition it existed prior to Hurricane Harvey and that
also work to mitigate the risk posed by future natural disasters.” Presumably, this translates to the
emphasizing of projects that address effects of future storms, in addition to rebuilding damaged
infrastructure. However, Table 2 indicates a clear emphasis on certain project types over others,
particularly among cities. Note the large number of government building requests. Many of these are
requests to repair or rebuild city halls and schools, as well as maintenance buildings and equipment, fire
and police facilities, and other public buildings. The Request also contains a significant number of
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) projects, as well as road and bridge projects. There are
comparatively fewer projects, however, for drainage improvements, buyouts, levees, and other projects
that would be expected to best “mitigate the risk” of future flooding effects.

1
https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4332
Table 2: Total Jurisdictions Requesting Projects by Type
Project Type Total Cities Total Counties Regional Total
Requesting Requesting Request Jurisdictions
Project Type Project Type Project Types*
Buyout 6 10 0 16
Elevation 2 1 0 3
Housing Assistance 7 4 0 11
Detention or Retention 4 5 0 9
Channel Improvements 4 5 0 9
Levees or Pumps 9 4 1 14
WWTP 23 1 0 24
Roads and Bridges 23 12 0 35
Government Buildings 50 7 0 57
Other 14 8 1 23
Study 4 1 1 6
*This column indicates the types of regional projects included in the request, not the total number of projects.

Chart 1: Total Cities Requesting Projects by Type

60
50
50

40

30
23 23
20
14
9
10 6 7
4 4 4
2
0

Buyout Elevation Housing Assistance Detention or Retention

Channel Improvements Levees or Pumps WWTP Roads and Bridges
Government Buildings Other Study
Chart 2: Total Counties Requesting Projects by Type
14
12
12
10
10
8
8 7

6 5 5
4 4
4

2 1 1 1

Buyout Elevation Housing Assistance Detention or Retention

Channel Improvements Levees or Pumps WWTP Roads and Bridges
Government Buildings Other Study

Charts 3 and 4 show these same project types by the total amount of funding requested for all projects
within each category by city and county. Among all requesting cities, heavily-damaged Houston has the
most requests overall and six of the seven largest individual project requests. These include:

• $13.5 billion for two housing assistance requests (not shown in chart below due to chart scaling
issues)
• $500 million to cover the 10 percent cost sharing required for FEMA Public Assistance recipients
• $923 million for two requests for hardening, dredging, and other improvements to the Houston
Ship Channel
• $400 million to construct a reservoir along Spring Creek to mitigate flooding

Of the 23 counties that have one or more requests in this package, Galveston County has the largest
total request at $12.2 billion. However, nearly all of this request consists of the “Ike Dike” project which,
while attributed to Galveston County in the request, is described as “protect[ing] the Houston-Galveston
Region…from hurricane storm surge.” At just over $12 billion, Harris County is the next largest request.
The proposed projects include:

• $1.4 billion for three separate buyout programs

• $4.4 billion for housing rebuild, rehab, and other housing assistance
• $6 billion for land acquisition for the Buffalo Bayou, Addicks and Barker reservoirs
• $124 million for the repair and remediation of 113 damaged county buildings, as well as flood
damage within the Harris County Hospital District
• $115 million for repair or replacement of “other disaster damaged infrastructure in the Harris
County Flood Control District”
Altogether, $27.3 billion—over 40 percent of the total state request—are from Houston and Harris
County. This includes $19.3 billion for housing-related projects. Questions remain, however, about how
this significant amount of money, an amount that dwarfs the annual budget for either jurisdiction, will
be spent in response to recovery needs and how the city, county, and state intend to ensure that these
funds are spent in an “equitable and fair” way as the Commission has charged.

Additionally, it is worth highlighting that despite the Commission’s declaration that “this request does
not deal directly with housing needs,” the single largest request, aside from the $12 billion “Ike Dike” is
Houston’s $9 billion housing assistance request, shortly followed by their $4.5 billion buyout, relocation,
and flood mitigation projects. These two housing assistance requests for Houston alone account for 22
percent of all funding requested for the entire state.

Despite this Request’s stated focus on infrastructure and that this Request “does not deal directly with
housing needs that will be addressed through the Community Development Block Grant program”, the
Commission did include some housing-related projects on a very limited geographic basis that mostly
propose the CDBG Disaster Recovery program as a primary funding source. Only five other housing
assistance requests from cities totaling $370 million, and three other counties totaling $915 million, are
included in the total request. Nonetheless, the inclusion of these 10 housing assistance projects, in
addition to over $100 million for buyouts and housing elevation in cities, as well as over $1.7 billion for
these purposes in counties (nearly $1.4 billion of which is for Harris County alone) demonstrates that
the Commission was willing to include housing projects as a significant portion of this federal funding
request.

Chart 3: Requested Funding for Cities by Project Type

$3,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$500,000,000

$0

*For chart scaling reasons, this figure doesn’t include $13.5 billion requested by City of Houston for Housing Assistance, which
makes this category far and away the largest request category
**Several port projects and power utility projects make up much of this total
Chart 4: Requested Funding for Counties by Project Type
$14,000,000,000
$12,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
$6,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$0

Given that the Commission was apparently open to including housing-related projects in the Request, it
is especially concerning that more cities and counties did not request, or the Commission did not
include, more housing activities. An analysis of FEMA Housing Assistance data shows significant housing
damage in numerous jurisdictions, with 35 cities and 18 counties having over 1,000 eligible homeowner
FEMA claims with housing damage alone (and nearly all jurisdictions have hundreds, if not thousands, of
renter claims with inspected housing damage). However, among these same cities and counties, only
five cities and 10 counties have any requests included for housing assistance, buyouts, or housing
elevation activities. In numerous instances, cities which have few FEMA claims have requested
significant projects costing millions of dollars. Conversely, many other cities have a high number of
FEMA claims yet their local government requested either funding for projects that fail to address
housing or infrastructure issues or request nothing at all. 2

Government Buildings

There are 25 cities among the 87 included in the request which only seek funding for government
buildings. Presumably, in at least some, if not most, of these cases, flooding was the cause of damage.
Yet, none of these cities requested any funding for other projects that might mitigate the risk of future
flooding events throughout their jurisdictions. When compared to FEMA Housing Assistance data, the
perceived level of damage in these cities raises questions. Six of these cities had more than 1,000 claims
approved for FEMA assistance (Port Arthur, Rockport, Humble, Bay City, Port Lavaca, Cleveland)
indicating a high level of damage. Yet, their requests include only funding for government buildings;
there is nothing for drainage infrastructure, housing needs, or buyouts, among other project types.

In all, 50 cities and seven counties requested funding for government buildings—by far the most
common type of request—accounting for $611 million of the Request.

2
FEMA Housing Assistance data as of November 20, 2017
Disconnect Between Requests and Total FEMA Approved Claims

Also a cause for concern are cities with high numbers of approved claims that have no projects at all, or
cities with very few claims that request large projects. Thirty-nine cities had over 1,000 owner claims
alone, and 12 of these cities had no projects included in the request. One city, Spring, has over 3,800
owner claims approved for IHP assistance, along with over 2,700 approved renter claims, with owner
damage totaled at nearly $58 million. The City of Richmond similarly had nearly 5,000 total approved
claims, but had no requests included by the Commission. It is unknown at this time whether these cities
didn’t submit any requests, or if the Commission did not include the requests submitted.

At the other extreme, 10 cities with fewer than 10 total approved claims have project requests, several
for millions of dollars. The disconnect is worth further examination, as some of these beg the question is
the necessity for the project being overstated, or were these communities overlooked by FEMA?

The small community of Bailey’s Prairie (page 271), where only four valid registrations for assistance
were received and just one FEMA claim was approved, requested $5.5 million “for the reconstruction of
110 homes.”

Another small community, Pine Forest (page 244), had only two FEMA inspections and four approved
claims. Yet, “the Pine Forest City Hall building was destroyed during Hurricane Harvey.”

The costliest of these projects is $231 million to improve the Brazos Island Harbor Channel (page 45)—
located in Brownsville. There were zero approved claims in Brownsville, which lies far outside the area
of Texas affected by Harvey. The project narrative makes no reference to damage, the hurricane, or
mitigation of risk, yet the Commission found the project worthy of inclusion in its request. This leads
into the next area of concern: the “Other” projects.

The “Other” Projects

After the Housing Assistance category (which consists almost entirely of Houston’s $13.5 billion in
requests), the Other category comprises the next largest request amount for cities $2.5 billion, and is
the largest category overall for counties at just under $13 billion. The largest of these is the “Ike Dike”
(page 16) which, at the cost of $12 billion, proponents claim will protect the Houston-Galveston region
from the damaging effects of hurricane storm surge. However, such a project would have done arguably
little, if anything, to protect this region from the flooding it experienced from Harvey due to rainfall, not
storm surge.

Many of the other big dollar requests under this category are port improvement projects, most of which
mention little to nothing about damage or mitigation of risk from future disasters. These seven port
projects are requesting a total of just under $4 billion dollars. Some examples, in addition to the
aforementioned Brownsville project, are:

• a $369 million request to improve the Freeport Harbor Channel (page 46). It’s worth noting here
that this is the only project which the City requested, despite the fact there were nearly 1,100
approved FEMA claims there;
• the Sabine-Neches Channel (page 20), which seeks $1.3 billion for a “project that would deepen
the…Waterway from 40 feet to 48 feet…[which] would allow larger ship[s] to reach local ports.”
 There is no mention of any damage caused to the port, nor any proposed mitigation of risk
offered in this substantial funding request.

Some other suspect examples of funding requests include:

• Four jurisdictions (League City, Missouri City, Brazoria County, Baytown) requesting as much as
$1 million for high water vehicles. In the case of Missouri City, where nearly 4,700 FEMA claims
were approved, this comprised their only request at a total of $525,000. (pages 135, 130, 136,
and 125, respectively)
• In the City of Jersey Village, where only 10 homeowners and 37 renters had FEMA-approved
claims, a $131 million study is being requested for a “risk management project related to White
Oak Bayou.” (page 41)
• In the City of Port Arthur, which experienced severe flooding that resulted in over 10,000
approved claims, is second only to Houston among all affected cities in the number of FEMA
claims with owner housing damage, and fourth in the number of claims with renter housing
damaged, only funding for the repair of school buildings, at a total of $23 million, was
requested. (pages 113-114)
• Despite over 6,000 FEMA-eligible claims for homeowners and nearly 7,000 for renters, Nueces
County has only a $3 million request included “to repair/restore/replace facilities damaged by
flooding.” (page 236) Corpus Christi, located in Nueces County, accounts for nearly 5,000 of
these owner claims and nearly 6,000 renter claims. Yet, the City has only the following requests
included:
o $4 million for repair to several municipal buildings (page 289)
o $355 million for a Port of Corpus Christi “improvement project” with no mention of
damage in the project description (page 43), and
o $3 million for a study of the La Quinta Channel Extension that appears to simply expand
the capacity of the Port. (page 39)

A full list of all cities, counties, and projects by category is below:

Table 3: Category Definitions

Category Definition
Location The city or county in which an entity is based/headquartered. Location
is "Texas" if multi-juristictional or regional project.
Questionable A project that has a weak relationship to disaster recovery, requests an
amount of money inconsistent with project scope, or has an overly
vague description; could be nature or justification of project
Buyout Any plan to purchase property that has been subjected to flooding,
removing it from residential or other use that would structurally
improve the property
Elevation Elevation of a building for the purpose of mitigating flood risk. Does not
include elevation of equipment (pumps or other WWTP infrastructure),
roads, or bridges.
Housing Assistance Repair, Rehabilitation, Buyer Assistance, Rental Assistance, or
relocation
Detention/Retention Any type of pond, lake, or reservoir structure for the purposes of
holding storm water drainage for flood mitigation
Channel Improvements Any project that dredges, widens, or otherwise seeks to improve
capacity or performance of a drainage channel, bridge/culvert, creek,
or riverbank. Includes installation or repair of gates. Does not include
port channel improvements
Levees/Seawalls/Pumps Installation or improvement of levees, seawalls, and bulkheads to
mitigate erosion and flooding, as well as improvement or installation of
pumps and related equipment
Wastewater Infrastructure Any project that seeks to repair, improve, protect, elevate, or
reconstruct a local wastewater treatment plant or related
infrastructure
Roads/Bridges Repair, reconstruction, or elevation of roads and bridges
Govt Buildings and Repair or reconstruction of government buildings and equipment
Equipment contained therein; does not include waste water treatment plants
Other A catch-all category for other types of infrastructure projects or other
purposes
Study/Planning Any type of study or planning activities without associated
infrastructure activities
Table 4: Cities and Projects by Type
Location Total Buyout Elevation Housing Detention/ Channel Levee or Pumps WWTP Roads & Government Other Study Total Request
Projects Assistance Retention Improvements Bridges Buildings

Anahuac 1 $17,000,000 $17,000,000

Angleton 2 $468,540 $1,787,820 $2,256,360

Aransas Pass 5 $2,350,000 $3,500,000 $30,000,000 $11,600,000 $47,450,000

Arcola 2 $330,000 $200,000 $530,000

Austwell 2 $4,000,000 $4,000,000

Bailey's Prairie 1 $5,500,000 $5,500,000

Bay City 1 $20,000 $20,000

Bayside 2 $5,200,000 $200,000 $5,400,000

Baytown 4 $22,000,000 $40,000,000 $6,240,916 $250,000 $68,490,916

Beaumont 9 $20,173,649 $296,404,320 $2,200,000 $3,500,000 $14,100,000 $336,377,969

Bevil Oaks 1 $300,000 $300,000

Bridge City 2 $2,000,000 $2,000,000

Brownsville 1 $231,000,000 $231,000,000

China 2 $3,300,000 $3,300,000

Clear Lake Shores 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Cleveland 1 $300,000 $300,000

Clute 1 $237,000 $237,000

Columbus 3 $14,250,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $17,750,000

Corpus Christi 3 $4,000,000 $355,000,000 $3,000,000 $362,000,000

Cuero 1 $180,538 $180,538

Daisetta 1 $15,000,000 $15,000,000

Danbury 2 $750,000 $2,500,000 $3,250,000

Dickenson 2 $36,360,000 $1,150,000 $37,510,000

Freeport 1 $369,000,000 $369,000,000

Friendswood 3 $4,000,000 $13,250,000 $6,000,000 $23,250,000

Galveston 2 $32,500 $14,000,000 $14,032,500

Goliad 1 $1,500,000 $1,500,000

Groves 4 $5,000,000 $2,420,000 $5,000,000 $12,420,000

Hamshire 1 $9,530,000 $9,530,000

Houston 15 $13,500,000,000 $400,000,000 $27,000,000 $115,958,010 $1,423,000,000 $177,000,000 $15,642,958,010

Huffman 1 $4,000,000 $4,000,000

Humble 1 $6,700,000 $6,700,000

Ingleside 3 $3,500,000 $11,836,730 $15,336,730

Iowa Colony 3 $3,310,000 $3,310,000

Jacinto City 1 $17,500,000 $17,500,000

Jersey Village 1 $131,000,000 $131,000,000

Katy 5 $572,800,000 $453,144 $1,025,430 $16,000,000 $590,278,574

Klein 1 $4,000,000 $4,000,000

Kountze 1 $30,000 $30,000

La Grange 5 $23,250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $750,000 $24,350,000

League City 3 $22,818,000 $1,000,000 $23,818,000

Liberty 2 $2,200,000 $50,000 $2,250,000

Lumberton 3 $900,000 $900,000

Manvel 3 $3,000,000 $50,000,000 $30,000,000 $83,000,000

Missouri City 1 $525,000 $525,000

Nederland 2 $7,500,000 $2,500,000 $10,000,000

New Waverly 1 $370,000 $370,000

Nome 2 $350,000 $100,000 $450,000

Nursery 1 $50,000 $50,000

Odem 1 $669,712 $669,712

Orange 3 $75,000,000 $70,300,000 $145,300,000

Palacios 2 $2,100,000 $3,000,000 $5,100,000

Pasadena 4 $4,930,000 $7,280,000 $12,210,000

Pearland 4 $50,000,000 $200,000,000 $81,000,000 $331,000,000

Pine Forest 1 $1,050,000 $1,050,000

Pinehurst 1 $5,167,007 $5,167,007

Point Blank 5 $83,500 $83,500

Port Aransas 3 $35,261,000 $35,261,000

Port Arthur 2 $23,185,000 $23,185,000

Port Lavaca 2 $1,717,500 $1,717,500

Port Neches 2 $5,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000

Portland 1 $6,117,000 $6,117,000

Refugio 1 $14,000,000 $14,000,000

Richwood 3 $8,260,000 $50,000,000 $58,260,000

Rockport 2 $55,757,000 $55,757,000

Rose City 3 $13,500,000 $1,200,000 $14,700,000

Rosenberg 2 $2,250,000 $25,068,000 $27,318,000

Sabine Pass 1 $1,500,000 $1,500,000

Santa Fe 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Seabrook 2 $35,310,000 $716,000 $36,026,000

Seadrift 1 $5,000,000 $5,000,000

Simonton 3 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $13,000,000 $43,000,000

Sour Lake 1 $29,185,000 $29,185,000

Stagecoach 1 $120,000 $120,000

Sugar Land 2 $27,000,000 $27,000,000

Surfside Beach 2 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,000,000

Sweeny 1 $3,500,000 $3,500,000

Taft 1 $6,228,571 $6,228,571

Victoria 2 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $14,000,000

Vidor 6 $22,750,000 $10,500,000 $13,745,000 $46,995,000

West Orange 4 $2,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000

West University 1 $100,000,000 $100,000,000

Place
Wharton 3 $77,000,000 $4,225,000 $57,725,752 $138,950,752

Woodloch 1 $120,000 $120,000

Woodsboro 1 $15,000,000 $15,000,000

Table 5: Counties by Projects and Type
Location Total Buyout Elevation Housing Detention/ Channel Levee or Pumps WWTP Roads & Government Other Study Total Request
Projects Assistance Retention Improvements Bridges Buildings

Aransas County 3 $13,090,000 $20,790,000 $33,880,000

Austin County 1 $5,500,000 $5,500,000

Bastrop County 1 $500,000 $500,000

Brazoria County 6 $160,000,000 $160,000,000 $250,000,000 $50,000,000 $2,571,551,000 $200,000 $3,191,751,000

Calhoun County 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Chambers County 2 $300,000,000 $300,000,000

Colorado County 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Fayette County 1 $1,500,000 $1,500,000

Fort Bend County 9 $34,000,000 $300,000,000 $27,000,000 $354,840,000 $3,000,000 $718,840,000

Galveston County 6 $5,000,000 $20,000,000 $162,125,000 $12,000,000,000 $12,187,125,000

Hardin County 6 $20,000,000 $5,000,000 $15,000,000 $5,000,000 $8,000,000 $53,000,000

Harris County 11 $1,373,625,000 $4,422,490,400 $6,000,000,000 $124,000,000 $115,000,000 $12,035,115,400

Jasper County 1 $28,000,000 $28,000,000

Jefferson County 5 $750,000,000 $50,000,000 $1,000,000 $754,000,000 $1,555,000,000

Liberty County 3 $15,000,000 $500,000 $15,500,000

Matagorda County 5 $12,000,000 $21,440,000 $25,000,000 $220,000 $58,660,000

Montgomery County 3 $70,000,000 $1,600,000,000 $2,500,000 $1,672,500,000

Newton County 2 $24,000,000 $2,500,000 $26,500,000

Nueces County 1 $3,000,000 $3,000,000

Orange County 3 $20,000,000 $1,165,000,000 $1,185,000,000

Refugio County 5 $3,250,000 $17,500,000 $40,500,000 $61,250,000

Victoria County 3 $7,750,000 $7,500,000 $15,250,000

Wharton County 1 $5,000,000 $5,000,000

Table 6: Regional Projects by Type

Location Total Buyout Elevation Housing Detention/Retention Channel Levee or Pumps WWTP Roads & Government Other Study Total Request
Projects Assistance Improvements Bridges Buildings

Texas 8 $1,000,000,000 $4,001,000,000 $3,528,000,000 $8,529,000,000