Both Harris County judge candidates promised a new flood bond Sunday. Neither was asked about the 2018 one.

Both candidates for Harris County judge told a Sunday forum they would put another flood bond before voters. Neither was asked what happened to the one voters already approved.

Letitia Plummer and Orlando Sanchez each pledged to seek future bond elections for county flood needs at an October 5 forum hosted by The Metropolitan Organization at Congregation Beth Israel in Houston, Hoodline reported. Both said they would build on the 2018 flood bond.

Why it matters

Harris County voters already approved $2.5 billion for flood work in August 2018, with more than 85 percent of the vote. Eight years later the county is still asking the state for more time to spend the federal money tied to that effort, and 25 of 181 bond projects are paused.

A promise to ask for more money is a different promise when the last ask is unfinished. That is the question a forum is for.

By the numbers

$2.5 billion, the 2018 Harris County flood bond, approved August 25, 2018 with more than 85 percent of the vote, per the American Society of Civil Engineers. ABC13 put it at about 85 percent on election night.
150 projects were on the Flood Control District’s map at the time, per the same account.
$1.07 billion in Hurricane Harvey grant money got another one-year extension from the Texas General Land Office in September, as this desk reported on September 28. The land commissioner called it the last one.
14 of 17 block grant mitigation projects were still in design as of April 1, 2026.
$1 million, the public and private funding both candidates committed to raise for three community “lighthouses,” facilities meant to supply power, food and medical support during outages.
$2.5 billion, the Harris Health bond approved November 7, 2023. Becker’s Hospital Review puts the approval share at 72.62 percent. Hoodline’s account of the forum puts it at 72.3 percent.
Sanchez told the forum he had secured “almost 75%” voter approval for trauma center funding. Both published figures are closer to 72.6 percent.
Two candidates appeared. This desk counted four in the race on October 3.

What the coverage buried

Hoodline’s write-up carries both pledges for a future bond election and never puts the 2018 program next to them. The story names the 2018 bond only as the thing the candidates would build on. It does not report that the Harvey money attached to that era of flood spending has been extended again, or that a quarter of the current bond project list is paused, both of which are on the public record.

The approval figure is the second gap. The article prints 72.3 percent in its own text and quotes a candidate saying almost 75 percent in the same piece, without noting the difference.

The other side

The honest case for a new bond does not depend on the old one being finished. Construction costs have risen since 2018, the 2018 program was never sold as the whole answer, and the federal share of several projects never arrived at the size the county assumed. Waiting until the last dollar is spent before asking for the next one would mean a decade of gaps.

That case is real. It is also an argument a candidate should have to make out loud, with the 2018 numbers on the table. Neither candidate was asked to make it.

What to watch

November 3, the county judge election.
October 15, the next Commissioners Court meeting, where flood items and the Flock contract both sit.
February 28, 2028 and March 31, 2029, the extended General Land Office deadlines on the Harvey grants.
Whether either campaign publishes a dollar figure, a project list or a tax rate impact for the bond they are proposing.

Bottom line

Agreement between the two candidates on flood bonds is not the story. The story is that both would ask Harris County to borrow again while the county is asking the state for more time to spend what it already has. A forum that gets agreement without getting a number has not tested anything.

Sources

Editorial