Infrastructure & Climate Prep
Worst-First Stormwater Infrastructure
-
Since 1983, Houston has had a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) - a five year plan of projects meant to address our infrastructure needs. Houston’s current method of selecting and prioritizing drainage projects within the CIP is inefficient, convoluted, and susceptible to political influence. To maximize the impact of currently available drainage funding, worsening climate impacts and deteriorating infrastructure - the city must adopt and implement a “worst-first” model that includes an up-to-date assessment of infrastructure condition (or lack thereof), flood risk, social vulnerability, and environmental hazards. Adopting a worst-first framework with these metrics, will make the most of our limited resources and reduce the financial and human cost of future disasters.
-
A 2024 study by the National Center for Environmental Information ranked Harris County as having the highest weather and climate hazard risk in the country due to its physical exposure to natural disasters, amplified by the vulnerability of its population and infrastructure.
Decades of underfunding and poor investment choices have resulted in outdated, life-threatening stormwater infrastructure across Houston. Both street and home flooding are major contributors to lower health and quality of life, especially as the danger of floodwaters are compounded by other environmental hazards including sewage overflows, truck pollution, and toxic industries. Increasingly severe storms are further straining Houston’s already outdated systems of underground and open ditch drainage.
Failing to address climate risk is worsening Houston’s housing crisis and damaging our existing stock of affordable housing. Climate risk has repeatedly been identified as a top concern for continuing to live in the city. 70% of Houston residents are concerned or very concerned about extreme weather, and 9% of census blocks in Harris County are listed as “climate abandonment areas”.
How has the City attempted to solve this problem in the past? Has a comprehensive solution been previously proposed/funded? If it fell short, how so?
In 2023, a budget amendment was proposed to establish an “inclusive and equitable” framework for distributing funding for street and drainage projects within the CIP, based on: needs based assessment, risk analysis, socioeconomic consideration, and community engagement. This amendment was withdrawn before being voted on.
The City of Houston is currently developing a Stormwater Master Plan that they claim will overhaul the current CIP process, however, public engagement processes for the Stormwater Master Plan have been almost nonexistent. In 1999, the city conducted a GIS analysis of its drainage infrastructure. Rebuild Houston, the long-diverted special fund for drainage projects contained no prioritization methodology passed in 2010.
-
A truly worst-first stormwater investment plan will ensure that the existing funds for infrastructure are spent in the most efficient and life-enhancing way for Houston residents. It will allow for real long-term planning that doesn’t operate from a baseline of funding shortfalls and a 10-year project backlog.
The city has total legal authority to develop a stormwater master plan and set standards for how it spends its own money. In the long-term the financial impact of a prioritization process will be revenue neutral, some one-time costs will be incurred in the development of the prioritization processes and changes to the CIP project selection process. The following municipalities have prioritization processes for stormwater management that takes into account public health, environmental justice, and neighborhood-level vulnerabilities.
King County (contains Seattle)
A prioritization process does not solve the current and historic underfunding of drainage infrastructure projects in Houston by hundreds of millions of dollars, but it will ensure that infrastructure the city develops with its limited funds will be put to the highest and best use: saving the lives and homes of Houstonians.
-
Houston Stormwater Master Plan, City of Houston
Houston at epicenter of climate disasters, facing severe economic, human losses, Houston Chronicle
King County Stormwater Retrofit Framework, King County
Harris County Prioritization Framework, Harris County
Burlington, Vermont, Environmental Protection Agency
Pittsburgh Strategic Plan for Stormwater, City of Pittsburgh
Tacoma Watershed Planning, City of Tacoma
Cooling Houston
-
Houston is only getting hotter. By 2050, heat waves are expected to last up to 27 consecutive days. The city must take meaningful action now to mitigate the public health and economic impacts of one of the most dangerous side effects of climate change. Houston needs a comprehensive extreme heat plan, underpinned by local ordinances, to increase shade cover, expand and incentivize cooling infrastructure, and protect those at a higher risk for heat-related illness and death.
-
Extreme heat is one of the most dangerous climate impacts, but there are common sense investments and adaptations the City of Houston can take to reduce the impact of extreme heat, especially in the hottest parts of the city. By developing a plan not just to respond to extreme heat, but to mitigate its effects the the City of Houston will keep the elderly, children, outdoor workers and those with disabilities safer from climate change. Across Houston, differences in shade cover mean that temperatures can vary by up to 14 dangerous degrees. High energy costs and an unreliable grid mean that too few working Houstonians can afford to cool their homes apporpriately. While the city has a plan to respond to extreme heat events and supports tree planting, we must scale up heat mitigation efforts to keep Houstonians safe.
-
Intervention 1: Continue tracking heat and start tracking public health impacts through collaboration with community partners and healthcare providers, inspired by Maricopa County’s heat tracking.
Intervention 2: Increase shade cover in high heat neighborhoods through expanded tree-planting and maintenance. Amend Chapter 33, Section 33-110 (Ord.No. 03-159, Sec. 5, 2-12- 03; Ord. No. 04-1015, Sec. 24, 9-27-04) to increase the tree planting requirement from two trees to four trees, per the recommendation of the City of Houston’s Shade Brigade.
Intervention 3: Develop shade structures in the public right of way in highest-heat neighborhoods, inspired by Phoenix’s sidewalk shade program.
Intervention 4: Conduct a feasibility study on installing Solar Photovoltaic panels over city owned parking lots, selling power back to the grid and placing revenue in a special fund for heat mitigation efforts, inspired by O’ahu’s Climate Resilience Plan.
Intervention 5: Incentivize cool roof retrofits through public financing with an emphasis on highest-heat neighborhoods. Cool roof retrofits for existing market-rate or subsidized affordable housing may be financed through revolving loan seeded through Fund 2409.
Intervention 6: Require the new construction in the City of Houston to meet high solar reflectance standards, inspired by Atlanta’s Cool Roof Ordinance.
Intervention 7: Support further heat mitigating retrofits of multifamily and single family housing through deep energy retrofits financed by tax increment dollars, inspired by Massachusetts’ Climate Ready Housing.
Intervention 8: Increase access to public cooling infrastructure like pools, libraries, and community centers.
-
Better understand the pre-emption threat posed by the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act.
Increasing some forms of shade infrastructure will encourage non-compliance with civility ordnance.
Counter: The solution to our housing crisis isn’t denying people shade as temperatures soar, it’s building and maintaining resilient, affordable homes.
We don’t have the money to do this.
Counter: Solar PV on public lots is revenue generating to support this plan. There are also existing city funds that could fund some heat mitigation efforts.
Jordan is a solar industry plant
Counter: I work in and believe in renewable energy’s capacity to create jobs and provide affordable reliable energy.
Parks as Flood Mitigation
-
Houston’s existing park sector funding system, grounded in outdated infrastructure boundaries, perpetuates environmental injustice by underfunding parks in flood-prone, historically marginalized communities. By redrawing parks sector boundaries to follow watershed lines and dedicating a portion of park funds to citywide use, Houston can transform parks into a strategic, equitable tool for flood mitigation and climate resilience.
-
What is the problem?
Houston’s current Parks and Recreation Dedication Ordinance creates 21 parks funding sectors based on freeway boundaries rather than environmental or equity considerations. This arbitrary system reinforces historic redlining and disinvestment by funneling developer fees into affluent, high-development neighborhoods—primarily on the west side of the city—while leaving lower-income, flood-prone communities with inadequate park funding. This inequity limits the ability of these neighborhoods to expand or maintain parks, which are essential for absorbing floodwaters, reducing heat island effects, and improving quality of life.What “accountable to” constituency does this problem impact?
This issue disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color, particularly in historically redlined areas like Third Ward (Sector 15), Near Northside (Sector 17), and Greater East End (Sector 11). These neighborhoods have fewer parks, less tree canopy cover, and face higher risks of flooding and extreme heat. The lack of green infrastructure contributes to increased stormwater runoff, exacerbated urban heat islands, poor air quality, and diminished public health outcomes. Financially, it leaves these communities without access to a resource proven to reduce healthcare costs, increase property values, and create jobs in maintenance and construction.How has the City attempted to solve this problem in the past?
The Parks and Recreation Dedication Fund was established in 2007 as a developer fee mechanism to expand Houston’s greenspace. Developers either build a park within a new subdivision or pay a $700 fee per housing unit into the local park sector’s fund. However, the fee amount has remained static since its inception, and funds cannot be shared between sectors. The City has not previously attempted a comprehensive overhaul of sector boundaries or implemented citywide redistribution, although a similar equity-based reform was recently adopted in the Sidewalk Ordinance, which allocates 30% of funds for citywide improvements.What promises (in law or spirit) has this broken?
This policy fails the promises of the Resilient Houston plan and the City’s Climate Action Plan, both of which emphasize equitable resilience and environmental justice. It also violates the spirit of Mayor Whitmire’s commitments to infrastructure fairness and neighborhood equity. The current system effectively redlines communities out of the benefits of nature-based climate adaptation, despite these being the areas most in need. -
What part of the problem does the solution solve?
This proposal would amend the ordinance to:Redraw park sector boundaries based on watershed geography, which better reflects natural stormwater flow and climate vulnerability.
Mandate that 30% of park dedication funds be pooled for use across sectors, prioritizing under-resourced communities.
Formally incorporate flood mitigation as a Parks Department objective, aligning parks strategy with the City’s flood resilience goals.
Where else has this solution or similar been attempted?
Seattle established a dedicated Park District with taxing authority and long-term funding streams to maintain and expand its park system equitably. Minneapolis similarly operates an independent park agency funded separately from the city budget. In Los Angeles, voters approved a parcel tax generating $90 million annually for parks, with a strong equity focus. Closer to home, Houston’s revised Sidewalk Ordinance provides a model for equitable distribution of development fees across geographic sectors.What is left unsolved by this solution?
This proposal does not address long-term operations and maintenance, which remain underfunded within the general HPARD budget. It also does not directly raise new revenue—only reallocates existing development fees—so systemic underinvestment in parks citywide will persist unless supplemented by other funding sources (e.g., voter-approved bonds, tax districts, or philanthropic support).Does the city have legal authority to pursue this solution? Has state pre-emption been attempted in related policies?
Yes, the City has local ordinance-making authority to modify how development fees are collected and distributed. State preemption has not been invoked in this domain, and the solution aligns with home rule governance under the Texas Constitution.What is the financial impact to the city?
This policy is revenue-neutral but redistributive. It reallocates existing developer fees, prioritizing environmental justice and resilience in vulnerable neighborhoods. It does not impact the General Fund, nor does it require new taxation. However, long-term impact may include reduced flood-related recovery costs, lower strain on drainage infrastructure, and improved public health.Revenue generating, if so how?
While the policy itself does not raise new revenue, investments in flood-mitigating parks can enhance nearby property values and encourage community revitalization, indirectly increasing tax revenues. Additional opportunities may include leveraging FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants or philanthropic funding tied to climate adaptation.Funding from within General Fund?
No. All funding is sourced through the existing Park and Recreation Dedication Fund. -
Better understand the pre-emption threat posed by the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act.
-
Increasing some forms of shade infrastructure will encourage non-compliance with civility ordnance.
Counter: The solution to our housing crisis isn’t denying people shade as temperatures soar, it’s building and maintaining resilient, affordable homes.
We don’t have the money to do this.
Counter: Solar PV on public lots is revenue generating to support this plan. There are also existing city funds that could fund some heat mitigation efforts.
Jordan is a solar industry plant
Counter: I work in and believe in renewable energy’s capacity to create jobs and provide affordable reliable energy.
-