2

Part One:
Buyouts and Other Forms of Strategic Relocation in Greater Houston, Texas

On June 8, 2022, the first part of the workshop was held in Houston, Texas. The aim was to hear from residents, local officials, and other experts about buyouts and other forms of strategic relocation in the Greater Houston area. The committee selected participants who could speak to issues relating to mandatory¹ and voluntary buyout programs, local decision-making processes, and public engagement about strategic relocation. In addition, participants were asked to discuss the implications of equity on displacement and relocation.²

COMMUNITY TESTIMONIALS

During the workshop’s opening remarks, Lauren Alexander Augustine, executive director of the Gulf Research Program (GRP), stated that the GRP could not do its work without understanding what environmental change meant to the people living there. The first activity of the workshop, community testimonials, was facilitated by Cleo Johnson-McLaughlin, president of the Black United Fund of Texas Inc. (BUFTX). Johnson-McLaughlin introduced the panel and invited panelists to discuss their experience with buyouts and other forms of strategic relocations that have already taken place or are currently under consideration in Greater Houston.

___________________

¹ More information about Harris County’s mandatory buyout program is available at the program website, https://harrisrecovery.org/post-disaster-relocation-and-buyout-program/

² A video of the Houston portion of the workshop is available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/06-08-2022/managed-retreat-in-the-us-gulf-coast-region-workshop-1

Marcus Glenn, BUFTX, provided the first testimony, during which he informed the audience that he grew up in a location fewer than 10 miles from the Port of Houston. He has witnessed the impact of catastrophic events expand from flooded streets to devastated communities and homes; he also stated that the impact on lower-income “communities of color is heartbreaking.” Glenn stated that individuals who have experienced adverse events several times have managed to build resilience but are tired of the problems not being addressed. He questioned why land-use planning did not incorporate the natural flow of water. According to him, his community’s concerns are not taken seriously or dealt with due to a lack of funding. Many impacted neighborhoods are also food insecure; therefore, Glenn emphasized local food production and supply considerations to prepare for future events.

Kevin McKinney, Flood Victims of Richwood, shared his experience of the days after Hurricane Harvey.³ As the water drained toward the Gulf of Mexico, their neighborhood in the city of Richwood, located in Brazoria County, was inundated by water for eight days. McKinney asserted that the inundation was because 27.7 billion gallons of water were diverted into his community. While recounting his experience, McKinney stated that “the built environment and urban planning in Brazoria County, [including] approving the development of new housing in areas subject to flooding and diverting water into other neighborhoods without proper planning[,] present reason[s] for other residents to worry about the relocation process and whether we will decide to relocate.” McKinney canvassed his neighborhood with flyers that contained questions regarding buyouts and relocation. During his testimony, he summarized the feedback of 20 people who had seen his flyers. After Harvey, residents were instantly displaced and left their homes with anything they could grab. Most of the families McKinney talked to said that they would never want to experience something like that again. After the flood, each family was on their own—some lived with others, moved RVs onto their properties, and lived in hotels, while others never returned to their homes. No relocation options were offered, and no one McKinney spoke to was aware of possible relocation options. After his conversation with these families, it became clear to McKinney that none of them were offered a buyout or had ever heard of one. However, most did not want to be bought out and were busy concentrating on piecing their lives back together.

___________________

³ Hurricane Harvey was a Category 4 hurricane when it hit Rockport, TX. It quickly turned into a tropical storm inland and, by the time it reached Houston, there was little wind to move the storm center. Harvey stalled over Houston, depositing 50 inches of rain. As the flooding that resulted is colloquially attributed to “Hurricane Harvey,” this proceedings retains that moniker.

Pleasantville, located by the Port of Houston, was heavily inundated during Hurricane Harvey. Darnell Ozenne, BUFTX, Pleasantville Civic League, stated that city and state officials overlooked flooding in Pleasantville. According to Ozenne, Pleasantville is a family-oriented and supportive community, and some residents prefer remaining in the community if feasible. There are limited programs, resources, and relocation options available to help people—especially seniors—and relocation options can be limited due to income restrictions. Ozenne hopes that city government officials can find different ways and avenues to help seniors and elevate the community’s voice.

Liberty County, located in southeastern Texas along the Gulf Coast, is another area where significant rain results in flooding and many residents are still rebuilding their homes from Hurricane Ike (2008). Barbara McEntyre, Coalition for Environment, Equity, and Resilience (CEER) and director of the Liberty County Long Term Recovery Committee, reported that they are a tight-knit and self-sufficient logging community with a large percentage of undocumented immigrants. County residents that were affected by Hurricane Harvey and that are at risk for future flooding were offered opportunities for buyouts. McEntyre recounted that the buyout grant provides 6.4 million dollars for 64 residents;⁴ so far, commitments have been acquired from 45 residents. Many residents’ homes are paid for; however, in many cases, they are barely worth $10,000. As a result, even with a buyout, many residents have nowhere to go. She also pointed out that the Housing Authority’s waiting list is consistently over 200 people. According to community feedback that McEntyre received, “the community has been made promises every election, and nothing ever happens,” so the community tries to support one another. McEntyre pointed out that of the 7,600 homes affected by Hurricane Harvey, only about 450 homes were being rebuilt. There are approximately 200 residents that still require assistance from the 2021 ice storm, and about 275 residents are still trying to remove mold from their homes following Tropical Storm Imelda in 2019. Furthermore, those without insurance are still trying to find repair funding and have not heard about buyout opportunities. McEntyre stated that the people making decisions do not have “boots on the ground that the community knows and trusts.”

Marcial Sanchez, CEER, has lived in the Allen Field community since the age of seven. It is a two-street neighborhood with one way in and one way out. Flooding has been a part of his life. In the past, the community

___________________

⁴ The following resource indicates the grant amount was closer to 6.7 million dollars: Houston-Galveston Area Council. (2018). Community development block grant-disaster recovery resources for local governments. https://www.h-gac.com/getmedia/38040552-a81f-4b42-926a4933ec637e7c/FINAL-CDBG-DR-Best-Practices-1-7-19.pdf

received financial support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and always managed to recover. After Hurricane Harvey displaced many community members, Harris County began a mandatory buyout in the neighborhood. Sanchez believes the community is being forced out because “more tax dollars” are needed than his mostly low-income community provides. He mentioned that the contractor responsible for the buyout program and the county failed the Allen Field community because residents were not provided with complete packets of all the required information, and people collecting information did not have experience in the buyout program. As a result, the Texas Organizing Project worked with Harris County and the contractor to hold meetings that enabled residents to ask questions about the buyout program and share feedback. However, Sanchez pointed out that the people who needed to hear from the residents were not present. Additionally, Sanchez would like to know why residents, after two years, are still awaiting an offer for their homes. Due to the time lag, residents lost opportunities for other houses due to the rise in housing market prices. Sanchez asked that local officials come forward and help his community.

Perla Garcia, CEER, is also from Allen Field. Around the start of the pandemic in March 2020, about 50 families in her community received letters concerning the buyout program. Since then, meetings have been held between residents and Harris County to ask questions about the program and share concerns, but there have been various communication issues. Garcia has dealt with many people from the program and felt like they were not doing enough to ensure information reached all residents, of whom many have Spanish as their primary language. Residents have received numerous letters about buyout offers, but these offers were based on values from 2017 and did not account for the total size of the land. She has been unable to find a home elsewhere that would allow her to store tow trucks for her business, and taking out a loan as has been suggested would leave her with debts over $100,000. She shared that some community members fear that the buyout program may have other motives, such as gaining access to oil in the ground. Before Hurricane Harvey plans were under way for a possible dam to retain floodwater, but that has not occurred. However, land added to Gray’s Bayou caused ankle-high mud to flow into the Allen Field community during Hurricane Harvey. Due to her house’s elevation, the water did not enter her home, but she was left with water and mud underneath and a damaged roof, and all she received was $400 for repairs which was not enough to fix the roof. Her experience has been frustrating because she does not want to sell her home and has nowhere else to go. The buyout offer is insufficient to purchase a comparable home, and she does not want to go into debt. She also noted unaddressed health-related issues, such as the added stress caused by the mandatory buyout. Furthermore, she hopes the Hispanic Latino community will be valued and that economic, health, and property issues will be addressed.

DISCUSSION AND Q&A WITH COMMUNITY TESTIMONIAL PANELISTS

Buyout Program Opportunities

After opening the discussion to workshop participants, the facilitator, Johnson-McLaughlin, asked panelists how they discovered buyout program opportunities. Ozenne replied that once his community was made aware of a buyout program opportunity, the home values that were offered prevented it from being a viable option. McKinney commented that none of the residents he spoke with wanted to be associated with a program “if it was not going to benefit us.” Most residents in McKinney’s neighborhood wanted to stay in their homes, and many still owed money on their mortgages. Regarding volunteer buyout programs within his community, Sanchez said that some individuals could break even, while others would need a reverse mortgage to afford living in a new home. Garcia had spoken with residents who felt “disrespected” and felt like they were “being robbed.” However, community-based organizations are trying to fill the gaps left by the local government. For example, another panelist, Teresa Davis, the interim coalition director for CEER, stated that her coalition sets aside space and time for communities, with language interpretation available, so that residents feel informed and educated about the buyout process. Davis said this was particularly important for the Vietnamese population because no documents had been translated into Vietnamese. She further noted that buyouts and health equity are also significant issues and stressed the need to include communities in discussions about moving, displacement, and relocation. McLaughlin added that many problems had not been addressed, and noted the need for elected officials to understand how communities are affected.

Committee member Lynn Goldman inquired about the differences between voluntary and mandatory buyout program processes. In response, Glenn mentioned that many voluntary programs in West Houston took place in more affluent communities, but that he was unfamiliar with any programs for those in low-income communities. In Ozenne’s experience, buyouts have only occurred in cases of property that is of significant value. He mentioned that he witnessed eminent domain utilized for mandatory buyouts. Garcia touched upon possible court fees for residents facing mandatory buyouts. McKinney felt that there were limited options in his community due to the community’s litigation. Sanchez pointed out he was informed that if residents in his community refused to accept the mandatory flood buyout program, their homes would be confiscated and they would be evicted.

Future Efforts

E. Barrett Ristroph, a committee member, asked about future government efforts. McKinney responded that there is a need to hold elected officials accountable and educate communities about the buyout program process. Ozenne also mentioned that many officials are not from impacted communities, and they “need to be people who work with us.” Additionally, Glenn noted that federal agencies such as FEMA should stop searching for reasons (e.g., the levee caused the flood and not the rain) to avoid assisting individuals who want to stay in their homes. Collectively, McKinney, Davis, and Glenn stated that residents do not feel FEMA is qualified to perform an appraisal on their homes. Davis pointed out that there are gaps and loopholes in policies and procedures that are not in the community’s best interests. Hence, she emphasized the need to implement a preplanning program since “we know what’s possible after Harvey.” McLaughlin mentioned that another kind of buyout is to move people by placing an assessed value on someone’s home for which they cannot afford the taxes.

From McEntyre’s perspective, more education is required. The grant writing organization had already established the dollar amount, which was not enough to purchase a similar property elsewhere before they came into the community. If community members were present, they would have provided an estimate of the total amount required. Moreover, an added challenge for some owners with rental properties was finding a new place for their tenants while keeping them in the existing property until the buyout process was complete. McEntyre commented that emergency services would not help those who have refused to accept the buyout program and relocate. She stated that households with elderly and children should not be in a situation where they call emergency services, and no one responds. She also emphasized the need for future emergency preparation at many scales (i.e., city, county, and state levels).

An audience member mentioned that another pressing issue is that of the undocumented population, many of whom do not qualify for buyout programs. Although some buyout programs allow undocumented individuals to participate, many such people are not being reached. In Ozenne’s area, some investors take advantage of undocumented individuals by charging them higher rents; this issue would be timely and costly to resolve.

Committee member Craig Colten observed that some people do not want to leave, but at the same time, they do not want to endure the trauma and cost of flooding again. Colten questioned whether a buyout is an adequate solution or if there are other preferred methods (e.g., elevation). In response, Ozenne stated that “repair and repeat” is perhaps the cheapest option for people since home elevation is costly. Although newly constructed homes can be built as elevated structures, most older existing

homes are not elevated. Furthermore, Ozenne does not think many developers consider the impact of new houses on existing houses. Sanchez obtained a permit to elevate his house after Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 (i.e., the first time his house flooded), but he could not find someone to elevate it as high as the county requirement. Additionally, Garcia does not understand the purpose of being directed to elevate homes above the floodplain while mandatory buyouts are occurring. McKinney mentioned that the Texas Land Commission dispatched a letter to everyone in his neighborhood stating that they had $30,000 in grant money to raise a house, yet the actual cost ranges from $100,000 to $150,000. Sanchez noted that other options could be explored, such as using nearby areas to retain water instead of relocating homes and “wiping out neighborhoods.”

From what Davis gathered from communities, many of them preferred rebuilding and elevating because the so-called “affordable” housing option is not affordable for most residents. McEntyre suggested the need to find solutions to fix homes since many families did not want to move. In addition, based on the resident’s location, other affordable options were limited. McEntyre touched upon beneficial activities such as expanding ditches to retain more water. However, she wants to see land-use plans account for additional water added to an existing area during new development.

A member of the audience asked panelists to consider long-term solutions, such as environmental restoration, and wondered if there have been community-level conversations between government officials and the community. In reply, McKinney stated that following Harvey, elected officials wanted to fill and build a subdivision on 968 acres of wetlands with retention ponds, which could have increased the water in his neighborhood. In this case, the developer backed out, but McKinney stressed the need to consider the bigger picture when making changes to the land. Glenn also suggested looking at possible ways nature could restore ecology and ecosystems, which may help determine actions and resources needed for communities to recover from extreme climate-related events.

Place, Identity, and Loss of Community

Thomas Thornton, board director for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Board on Environmental Change and Society, recognized the panelists’ expression of a strong sense of place and identity with their communities—yet, he pointed out, buyout decisions and relocation site decisions are largely made by individuals and households. He asked about community values lost in this process and how community relocation can be facilitated as an adaptation to flooding. Ozenne replied that it depended on each community since those with stronger community ties look out for each other. He went on to say that

residents who are no longer as connected to their community might opt for a buyout, but not for a low value. Ozenne, Sanchez, and Glenn noted that community identity and history are often lost when buyouts and displacement take place. Furthermore, Davis and Ozenne made a point about inviting the community to co-create and problem-solve solutions to displacement. McKinney noted that “what we lost was the trust of the elected officials and trust of the federal government,” further stating that they would like to be part of the process and regain trust. He touched on the resilience of his community and the ways by which the community managed to support itself.

Dolores Mendoza, an audience member who lived in the Allen Field neighborhood, moved due to the mandatory buyout program. She said that she had been doing well as a single parent with a moderate income. However, in her new home, she faced higher taxes, homeowner association fees, and new bills (e.g., a water bill). She mentioned that she lives paycheck to paycheck, has a three-hour commute every day, and that her children are facing stress as they adjust to a new school. She no longer has the support of her family, church, and community, and she does not know how to help her children manage their way through something so foreign to her. No one in her neighborhood was involved in the early stages of developing the mandatory buyout program. She sold her “forever home forcefully” and has noticed that the county is not maintaining it. As a result, it is now being vandalized and used as a dumping ground. However, she shared her key takeaway: elected officials should make ground-level decisions by talking to residents and receiving their input. She had hoped the buyout program would be a more straightforward process for all those after her, but, after two years, she thinks the buyout process is still poorly executed as her old neighbors are still living in homes with mold and leaky roofs. McEntyre commented that she also had experienced increasing expenses for flood insurance.

CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM BUYOUT PROGRAMS AND HOUSTON AS A RECEIVING COMMUNITY

Harris County Buyout Program

Ray Beltran, a Community Engagement Coordinator for Harris County, Precinct 1, commenced the second session by noting his role as a conduit between Allen Field residents and the department managing the buyout program. His office received a notice about the buyouts around the same time community members did—around the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Part of Beltran’s job was to identify issues and the concerns of

residents about the buyout program. He stated that he started by reaching out to other people who had gone through a buyout program in the United States. By doing so, he learned that the customer service component determined program success and that Harris County faced challenges he did not see in other buyout programs. For example, Harris County has more diversity, especially in terms of language. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Harris County could not have in-person engagement and interaction, which “complicated matters ten-fold.” Beltran felt that conversations about buying a home, especially for Latino communities, needed to happen in person. Subsequently, he was able to hold such conversations with the help of people like Perla Garcia, who convened neighbors in her front yard. His challenge was to find how to serve residents and ensure that he did not overstep his position since another county program was managing the buyout program. Another challenge Beltran highlighted was that the Allen Field community had not heard from anyone in the county in several years. However, when they did, the community was told to leave; so when Beltran came in, tensions were understandably high.

The buyout program for Harris County used property values from 2017 and assumed property values would decrease because of additional flooding. However, Beltran highlighted that the housing market experienced an approximately 30 percent median increase in property values. This would make it difficult for residents to purchase a home outside of the floodplain that was comparable to their current one using only the amount of money offered by the buyout program. Additionally, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funding restrictions made households of undocumented and mixed legal status ineligible for the buyout program. Beltran announced that his first goal was to ensure that everyone would be able to receive payment for their property. The Special Assistance Funding Effort program was created with 1.3 million dollars in local funds for undocumented households to receive offers for their properties.⁵ Lastly, Beltran identified this buyout program as, arguably, the first of its kind. Therefore, it has been a learning process to ensure that outreach and engagement are inclusive. He hopes that future buyout programs will be both an easier process and significantly more equitable.

Advancing Federally Funded Disaster Recovery Projects in Houston

Ryan Slattery, the senior advisor of sustainability and resilience in the Houston Mayor’s Office, is responsible for advancing large, federally funded disaster recovery projects focused on building resilience. First articulating a hopeful perspective, he stated that buyouts are a tool to be

___________________

⁵ For additional information about the program see https://harrisrecovery.org/legal-status/

employed equitably to provide the best possible outcomes for communities. Yet, he emphasized that managed retreat will not mitigate flooding for all of Houston. 237 square miles are in a floodplain, which affects 160,000 properties (37% of the city of Houston). Slattery mentioned that 50 properties were recently bought out, with an average of $230,000 per property, which was a long process and utilized a lot of time and resources.

The city of Houston was awarded 23 million dollars from a Community Development Block Grant for planning efforts. Slattery hoped to work with community members and key stakeholders to develop a framework for a buy-in/buyout program and to assess whether the program can provide a safe space for residents within the community to relocate to, thus maintaining the continuity of the community. According to Slattery, the most challenging part would be finding high ground in Houston, which intersects with 23 watersheds. Thus, to invest in maintaining community continuity, the city of Houston will need to understand which areas experience repetitive loss and which investments can be made in or adjacent to affected communities. Slattery would like to believe that some parts of the Houston area can serve as a sending community and other parts can serve as receiving communities, but he acknowledges that this scenario is not feasible in each part of Texas.

Intersections Between Low-Income Housing and Disasters in the Greater Houston Area

Shannon Van Zandt, professor of landscape architecture and urban planning at Texas A&M University at College Station, said that Houston is the largest city that she knows of that repeatedly and regularly experiences hazards. The city is also rapidly growing and is one of the most diverse major cities in the country; hence, there are multiple dynamics to account for. Van Zandt stated that “low-income people live in low-quality homes in low-lying areas” is an oversimplification. People may not receive information in the same way, have the same financial or social resources as others, or may not be as active or engaged in their community’s power dynamics; however, this does not mean they are not resilient. Instead, she noted, it highlights the compounding aspects of disaster risk and exposures through physical and social vulnerability (e.g., living in low-lying areas because of structural racism through zoning, mortgage, and finances) within the house and community. The existing literature consistently shows that “low-income communities and communities of color are more likely to receive greater damage during a disaster.” Yet, in the immediate wake of a disaster, it can be difficult to identify the communities that are most in need of help. Housing prices have also increased in the last three years, further constraining the Houston housing market. Van Zandt pointed out it is

often difficult to get out of harm’s way because of the difficulty in finding affordable housing with similar amenities and the same sense of community.

Van Zandt pointed to research done by her graduate student, Ki Jin Seong, whose dissertation looked at buyouts in Austin and found that approximately half of the families taking buyouts relocated to a flood-prone area.⁶ Based on these findings, Van Zandt suggested that mobility counseling could be used in the relocation effort. Houston has a higher renter rate than many major cities, with a homeownership rate of just 50 percent as compared to a national rate of 68 to 70 percent, thereby creating problems in terms of the availability and location of rental housing. In addition, speculative buying in Houston has been taking place since Hurricane Harvey. Van Zandt mentioned that investors are purchasing single-family housing and renting or sitting on it, further reducing affordability. Seong’s research also found that neighborhoods with a critical mass of buyouts witness lower housing values, increased minority concentration over time, and increased renters. Consequently, they become ghost subdivisions where lots are empty and overgrown. Van Zandt stated that Houston should investigate the remediation of vacant lots after buyouts; for example, adding amenities like floodable community gardens, which could help keep housing values up and absorb future flooding.

Lessons Learned in the Mandatory Buyout Program in Harris County

Shirley Ronquillo, co-founder and community activist for the Houston Department of Transformation, aims to elevate residents’ concerns in mandatory buyout programs. East Aldine, where Ronquillo resides, is a community of predominantly Spanish-speaking families (62.6% of people over the age of 18) with mixed status in unincorporated Harris County, which Ronquillo noted “was the first local government entity to use mandatory buyouts as a means to mitigate flooding.” At a meeting in August 2017, mandatory buyouts were listed as an item on the agenda, but nothing was advertised in Spanish and there were no engagement efforts.

In 2019, Ronquillo was contacted by a consulting firm to help get the word out about the house rehabilitation assistance, residential buyout options, and down payment assistance programs. During that period, the public was told that some communities would have buyouts, but specifics were not discussed, nor was a timeline offered. During the pandemic, the Harris County Community Services Department held the first two town hall meetings in English. By the second meeting, some communities had not yet

___________________

⁶ Seong, K. J. (2021). Living with Floods: Longitudinal Impact of Floodplain Buyouts on Neighborhood Change. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University. https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/195298

been notified that they would be part of the mandatory buyout program. Ronquillo stated that the information needs to be distributed in culturally appropriate ways while accounting for varying literacy levels, and she noted that many community members were unfamiliar with virtual meetings.

As the program progressed, Ronquillo’s community also discovered issues that prevented people from qualifying for a buyout, such as lack of an adult with legal status in the household, proof of home ownership, and missing receipts for repairs. Additionally, evidence of previous relocation support decreased the funding available for some residents. Ronquillo is in support of a federal policy enabling residents to have a seat at the table and hopes that this experience will be shared with other entities. Lastly, she stressed the importance of collaborating with community partners to get the word out to address resident concerns.

DISCUSSION AND Q&A WITH PANELISTS: “CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM BUYOUT PROGRAMS AND HOUSTON AS A RECEIVING COMMUNITY”

Buyout Location Criteria

The moderator of the panel, E. Barrett Ristroph, a committee member and principal and founder of Ristroph Law, Planning and Research, initiated the discussion by asking how mandatory buyout locations, such as Allen Field, are chosen. In response, Beltran mapped the guidelines for areas that received two feet of water during Harvey in a 100-year floodplain in a low- to moderate-income community. Alexander Augustine questioned if the repetitive loss is a criterion. Van Zandt suspects it was but was not sure. Slattery drew everyone’s attention to Harris County Flood Control District’s explanation of where funding comes from and where it goes,⁷ which considers repetitive loss as part of its criteria. Van Zandt pointed out that, as the first panel brought up, one issue is the difficulties the communities encounter when applying for available funds (e.g., lack of knowing what is needed to apply and how to get data to complete the forms).

Tools for Developers

A committee member, Lynn Goldman, noted that many panelists commented that nearby land development increased the water flow into their communities, and she asked about tools or modeling available to protect

___________________

⁷ To view Harris County Flood Control District’s funding sources, please visit https://www.hcfcd.org/About/Partnership-Funding and click on the image to the right of “funding sources.”

other properties. Slattery responded that they try to use strict floodplain ordinances, but zoning conversations in Houston are complicated. He said, “if it were easy to solve, it would be solved by now… but it’s not easy, and we can’t just throw money at it.” To protect Houston communities, Slattery hopes stakeholder engagement will provide everyone, including the development community, with an assurance that they will have a seat at the table.

Committee member Craig Colten pointed out that cities often look favorably on development and was curious if there was a way to use prudent long-term planning to offset potential costs for communities that suffer from repeat flood damage. Ronquillo stated that one cent of every dollar spent goes toward a special community fund. Many residents wish to remain in their existing communities, but there are no policies that she knows of that cater to this issue. However, there are many opportunities to address issues and keep communities intact. After Slattery noted that Houston is “a developer[-oriented] city” and Van Zandt interjected that Texas is “a developer-[oriented] state,” Slattery stated that he hopes to work with developers to create an affordable housing program in the community to relocate people out of harm’s way.

Future Opportunities and Lessons Learned

Gavin Smith, a committee member, asked the panel about the lessons learned. According to Beltran, the need for notices and letters in more than one language and making conversations accessible to the entire community was the biggest lesson—this was seconded by Slattery and Ronquillo. Slattery said that identifying and including key stakeholders to help guide decisions is paramount. Furthermore, Van Zandt spoke about Houston’s need for planning a constant state of recovery as part of the normal planning process. Ronquillo noted the need for a culturally competent community assessment in all policy recommendations and increasing communication among different government entities involved because needs are continuously changing. Therefore, answering that they “didn’t account for, budget for, or have funding for something that is impacting lives is not right.” Ronquillo noted that social media is a potential way to start connecting with people.

A panelist, Susan Rogers from the University of Houston, pointed out that she is concerned about the use of consultants for buyout programs and questioned if the city of Houston used any sociologists or social workers on their teams. Slattery mentioned consultants as an opportunity for a city to expand its bandwidth so that community engagement can be provided more efficiently. Ronquillo hopes the city of Houston will recognize the gap between consultants, leadership, and the buyout programs and consider

that the community participants are often retired. She noted that, typically, people such as Perla Garcia that are working and running their businesses are not involved in decision-making discussions.

IMPLICATIONS OF INEQUITY FOR DISPLACEMENT, HEALTH, AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING

Regional Conservation Work After Buyouts Occur

Deborah January-Bevers, the president and CEO of Houston Wilderness, began the third session with a description of her work in collaboration with environmental, business, and governmental entities to implement an ecosystem continuity and connectivity plan for the region,⁸ including restorative work after buyouts occur. There are ten distinct eco-regions in the Houston area, which overlap with an eight-county initiative with three main goals that could affect buyout locations:

1. Increase green space from 15 percent to 24 percent in protected or preserved land by 2040;
2. Reach 50 percent in nature-based stabilization techniques by 2040; and
3. Work toward a 0.4 percent annual increase in organic carbon capture sequestration through native soil, plants, and tree enhancements in the region.

With those goals in mind, January-Bevers shared a map of protected/preserved land in the Houston region where opportunities may exist (see Figure 2-1).

January-Bevers cautioned that communities need to be protected as much as possible, so this would only be for areas that need or want to be bought out. As of now, seventeen areas are being targeted along riverine corridors or existing green spaces. Through an evidence-based collaborative effort, a two-pronged approach will be used to create river and waterway resilience in newly available green spaces in the region. More specifically, the approaches are (1) voluntary purchase of residential and commercial properties by respective counties or cities, and (2) Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) techniques, which will be collaboratively implemented as restorative enhancements on targeted buyout properties for improved sustainability and habitat. GSI will be implemented in two ways, including large-scale native tree plantings and native grass bio--

___________________

⁸ For additional information on the Gulf-Houston Regional Conservation Plan see http://gulfhoustonRCP.org

swales that bookend public parks. Furthermore, additional contiguous green space will contribute to community resilience, including access to green space for residents with potential environmental health impacts. January-Bevers mentioned that the goal was to get all 17 areas done with community support.

Resilience by Design

Susan Rogers, an associate professor and director of the Community Design Resource Center (CDRC) at the University of Houston’s College of Architecture, shared some of her CDRC work and explained the importance of design. CDRC uses shared leadership and decision making from beginning to end to “define, develop, and apply transformative design strategies” and focus on communities because “place and design matter.”

Rogers said that they listen more than they talk and meet people where they are, doing their best to eliminate participation barriers (e.g., offering childcare, offering meetings and resources in multiple languages). Rogers stated that “everyone needs a safe space to voice their concerns and be heard,” and if “we can do that right, we will improve our trust and belief in public institutions that serve us, which we need more than ever.”

Rogers shared that a large volume of work was done at the city and county level after Harvey to determine what can be done to better address the flood challenges. Her work with Greens Bayou shows that while tens of thousands of families have been affected by flooding, it had not received the same amount of analysis or funding as other watersheds. For example, Greens Bayou has roughly the same number of people, has been flooded roughly the same number of times, and affected nearly the same number of people as the Brays Bayou watershed; yet until 2016, 350 million dollars had been spent on mitigation efforts in Brays Bayou compared to 19 million dollars in Greens. Rogers suggested that this is evidence of the “lack of equity that has historically impacted flood mitigation investment for communities.” At the same time, the Sims Bayou Federal Flood Damage Reduction Project is evidence that these programs can successfully remove people from the floodplain.

Rogers stated that cost-benefit analysis requires mitigation projects to yield a positive economic return at the federal level, which is much harder to achieve in areas with lower property values. This formulation of property value does not include the human values of place and home. She addressed housing affordability, which challenges buyouts in communities such as Allen Field. Rogers mentioned that investors that purchase houses all over Houston, including in flood zones, affect neighborhoods of color far more than other neighborhoods. For example, due to investors, the previously predominantly owner-occupied Sunnyside community is now 37 percent renters. There are other inequities across scales, and Rogers stressed that recovery could not happen if resources available for recovery are inaccessible. Additionally, she suggested that local partners should be included in big disaster recovery project teams because “relationships among human beings are fundamental glue that holds us together or does not.”

Community Health and Flooding Displacement

Elizabeth Van Horn and Carolyn White, urban planners for the Harris County Public Health Department, examined how design, planning, and development affect health in Harris County—an increasingly ethnically diverse county with over 4.7 million people. Between 1980 and 2020, the county population increased by 96 percent, mostly in unincorporated areas; as a result, White and Harris report, there has been an extensive

conversion of natural landscapes to hardscapes, affecting flooding, flood resilience, ecosystems, and people. White explained that they looked at the susceptibility and vulnerability of communities to floods, sensitivity (i.e., how likely an individual is to be harmed), and how those balance with adaptive capacities.

White shared housing and transportation Social Vulnerability Index factors that may weaken a community’s ability to prevent human suffering and financial loss in a disaster in Harris County; these include the widespread prevalence of multi-unit housing, crowding, and lack of zoning. Van Horn pointed out that many historically black neighborhoods were originally communities that had moved outside then-city limits for opportunities for home ownership. The city later incorporated these areas, which has affected services available in those communities. Van Horn shared two maps highlighting areas with higher Black or African American populations, which correspond to areas with the lowest life expectancy (see Figure 2-2).

Van Horn noted that unaffordable housing can hurt health, and shared a housing cost-burdened map indicating where homeowners spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing, which is considered unaffordable. She further noted that 30 percent of a low income is more burdensome than 30 percent of a high income.

White identified where vulnerable communities and floodplains intersect, revealing where capacity-building opportunities may exist (see Figure 2-3) in communities to help residents cope.

Van Horn stated that their work investigates the health effects of repetitive flooding (e.g., mold exposure, bacterial infections, waterborne diseases, and exposure to toxins), health effects of displacement (e.g., disruption of social networks leading to mental health concerns, and overcrowding and communicable diseases), and the overlaps between them (e.g., mental health and stress-related heart conditions) that are outside of the individual’s control. Moreover, they looked at adaptive capacity and mitigation options, such as flood mitigation using retrofits, buyouts, GSI, and natural channel design.

Manufactured Home Parks and Managed Retreat

Andrew Rumbach, an associate professor of landscape architecture and urban planning at Texas A&M University at College Station, shared unique challenges faced by people living in and relying on mobile home parks, where many residents struggle during and after disasters. Over 85 percent of mobile homes are not mobile; instead, they are tough to move and even moving them can result in insurance issues. In the United States, 17.5 million people live in mobile homes, including manufactured

homes,⁹ mainly in sunbelt states like Texas, Florida, and California. Approximately 2.9 million mobile homes are in land-lease communities, where land is rented and the mobile homes are owned. Mobile homes are affordable (on average, they cost half the price per square foot as compared to site-built housing), attainable (fewer barriers than other affordable housing types), and available—providing three times as many units as public housing. Additionally, they have walls that are not shared with neighbors, thereby creating privacy.

___________________

⁹ A manufactured home is a “dwelling unit of at least 320 square feet in size with a permanent chassis to assure the initial and continued transportability of the home.” Mobile homes and manufactured homes are distinguished by manufacturing date; the term “mobile home” refers to units built prior to 1976, while those built in 1976 and after are considered manufactured homes. The term “mobile home” was used to refer to both throughout Rumbach’s presentation.

Rumbach reported that mobile home parks are difficult to analyze because they are not identified by planning data sources such as census tracts. It is difficult to know where mobile homes are (e.g., tax records, trees blocking satellite views, and over-counting). Furthermore, he said, many regulations require them to be “physically invisible” (i.e., built behind fences). “[I]f you’re invisible, you’re vulnerable,” Rumbach said. His research estimates over 800 mobile home parks in Harris County, which he said are essential to consider when developing equity-informed disaster policies.

In Houston, Rumbach noted, mobile home parks are in areas with lower household income and education, large households (which are associated with more Hispanic/Latino and fewer non-Hispanic Black residents), and historically exclusionary land-use policies. He highlighted that it is not just rural housing; rather, they are most prevalent in Houston in moderately urbanized areas close to the central business district. Many mobile home

parks are located on relatively low-value land that often floods. Rumbach shared a map depicting mobile home parks overlaid with floodplain data for 100- and 500-year floodplains, showing almost a quarter of the land (24.8%) is in a mapped 100-year floodplain (see Figure 2-4). This compares to 18.7 percent of land in census block groups with no mobile home parks and 19 percent of land in the region overall.

From a social equity perspective, Rumbach explained that buyouts could disrupt an entire neighborhood relatively easily, and many individuals may not have the resources or legal status to advocate for themselves. Also, because mobile homes are often not visible or noted as such in government records, owners are often not represented in decision-making processes around relocation. Since residents of mobile home parks do not own the land, in most cases they would not be recipients of buyout programs. Rumbach also questioned what would happen to fixed assets (like mobile homes) that cannot be moved. From a policy perspective, mobile homes are treated like businesses, but from a community perspective, they are housing and a “crucial part of our affordable housing system.”

Q&A WITH COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND AUDIENCE

Future Considerations

Moderator Lynn Goldman, committee member and Dean of the Milken Institute of Public Health at George Washington University, asked panelists to reflect upon efforts to move forward. One challenge faced by Houston is that flood development regulations change frequently. However, Rogers pointed out that flood problems do not have an interest in property lines. Accordingly, there is a need to understand flood issues across scales, and consider regional challenges while also respecting the role the natural environment can play to help alleviate flooding. Rogers also noted the lasting mental health effects of Hurricane Harvey, asking the audience, “Am I right? All of us have PTSD. Every time there’s a threat of a heavy rain, we keep our[selves] at home.” January-Bevers commented that decision makers should understand their local soils and make decisions based on that. For example, benefit transfer¹⁰ from areas in the Midwest was relied on, which is not true for the clay soil in the Houston area, which causes more pre-

___________________

¹⁰ Benefits transfer is understood as “a practice used to estimate economic values for ecosystem services by transferring information available from studies already completed in one location or context to another.” United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank, 2005, Handbook of National Accounting: Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting 2003, Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 61, Rev. 1, Glossary, United Nations, New York, paragraph 9.107.

cipitation runoff. To combat this issue, White suggested stream restoration and natural channel design throughout the watershed.

Goldman asked about the efforts to target communities that, historically, have not been sites of restoration work. White stated that such efforts should frame opportunities holistically. In response, Rogers brought up a FEMA funding analysis from 2019 that found that 85 percent of buyout funding has benefited white neighborhoods. In some areas, there are new residents with no recollection of the catastrophic aftermath of Harvey and a large percentage of renters. Some progress has been made, however. For example, Texas implemented a law requiring landlords to disclose a property’s flood history. However, Rogers pointed out that disclosure only happened if a potential renter asked (i.e., they were not mandatory), so efforts still need to be made.

Health Resources

Janice Barnes, Committee co-chair, asked whether health resources are available for those like Perla Garcia. White said Harris County Public Health provides a coordinated disaster response focused on mental and physical health care, as well as disaster response assistance through longer-recovery programs. Community preparedness assessments have been conducted in multiple languages to help educate residents on how to prepare for an emergency and provide guidance on longer-term activities to increase community resilience. Barnes noted that coordination of mental health resources is vital. Rogers felt that civic infrastructure devoted to disaster recovery is critical; she reported hearing that people want such infrastructure to be located in their communities and put in place before disasters. Still, January-Bevers noted that the discussions surrounding the creation of “neighborhood centers” have stopped. To provide context, Shirley Ronquillo advised that many people in Allen Field did not qualify for the resources from Harris County Public Health. She noted that, during disasters, there has been a disconnect in getting people to the proper safe location, so it is not just about having the center but also getting people there.

Proactive Long-Term Planning

Committee member Craig Colten asked if there was a way to build, in advance, toward safer areas without the consequences of sprawl and flood risk to lower-lying communities for long-term planning. Van Horn replied that this type of planning would require sacrificing the “American Dream.” Instead, she suggested that people with resources may have to make some sacrifices and that building more densely may help. Rogers replied that too much is asked from those who do not have enough, instead of asking

from those who have more than enough. Rumbach offered that the local governments have different land rules, which can create sprawl; therefore, “it is a regional issue that requires regional solutions.” Additionally, he emphasized the need to look at a smaller scale. For example, census blocks can obscure a lot: within a higher-income block, there might be a pocket of lower-income families.

Additionally, Rumbach pointed out that many health issues stem from uncertainty. Currently, one of the fundamental problems with buyout programs is the uncertainty they create for people; money moving slowly through federal programs to people who need it is only one example. Rogers said, “each community that identifies as a whole, however that might be, has a solution that is right for them, and we have to figure out what that is by talking to people.” She wondered why someone could not just come in and pay for the damage.

Barnes asked if there have been any efforts for homeowners on larger parcels to contribute to stormwater management via onsite water retention. White responded that there is a requirement for a certain volume of retention required at all scales down to two or three lots, and mitigation is required when adding concrete or pavement. Van Horn suggested thinking proactively about buying out owned and undeveloped properties to retain stormwater to prevent the need for further buyouts.

McKinney noted that some retention ponds drain into neighborhoods once they reach capacity. January-Bevers recalled post-Harvey discussions about ways to connect retention ponds; she was unsure what the status was but thought it should be revisited. White also pointed out that to a certain point, flood control does that. Moreover, Ozenne suggested using trees that can absorb water better than others, and wondered why some homeowners associations prevent people from purchasing these.

CLOSING REMARKS

Goldman wrapped up the workshop by reflecting on the day’s discussion regarding the different types of strategic relocation, such as mandatory and voluntary buyouts, relocation within existing communities, and individuals moving due to tax increases. On the other hand, many residents have stayed and experienced a cycle of repeated flood recovery and repair, but differences arose with Hurricane Harvey. She emphasized the following points:

• Differences of opinion were heard from participants about sources of risk that appear to be tied to the natural and the built environment, and the interaction between them and changes to the natural environment, such as paving and removing vegetation that absorbs

• floodwaters. There is a possible option of remediating or modifying that.
• Many workshop participants expressed a need to better understand the functions and limitations of these programs and how to align them with the community’s wishes (e.g., some prefer to elevate while others prefer mandatory buyouts).
• Several participants commented on constraints such as relocating to an area that also experienced flooding and not being able to receive the resources and funding needed for relocation.
• Stories were shared about what happened after a home is bought out, which can create problems in the remaining community.
• Individual participants raised questions about why appraisals have not accounted for a shifting real estate market, whether prices are fair enough for relocation into a comparable situation, and how to do buyout programs moving forward.
• Some workshop participants expressed that buyouts have disproportionately benefited wealthier communities compared to lower-quality, lower-lying houses in lower-income communities.
• Several participants pointed out that government mistrust partially emanates from history and partially from a breakdown in governmental processes for buyouts (e.g., not providing understandable information in their language).
• Some panelists suggested that decisions should be made with community participation.

In her final comment, Goldman stated that a criterion for buyouts is repeated flooding, which can be traumatic, so a need was expressed by many participants for identifying and implementing health care and mental health care, food security, and social services in these areas.