Zeve joined HCFCD one day after the Halloween Flood of 2015. He had a distinguished career in the private sector that led from Bachelors and Masters degrees in civil engineering at Texas A&M to one of the most important flood-control jobs in the country. Along the way, Zeve proved himself to be an accomplished engineer, a top-notch manager, a driven public servant, and a consummate communicator who handled himself with grace under pressure – all while managing the equivalent of a $5 billion startup in little more than three years. Like most good managers, Zeve shuns the spotlight, preferring to credit his talented team of employees and consultants.
Regardless, Zeve helped organize and lead the effort to build a $2.5 billion flood-bond program after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. He led 21 of 23 watershed meetings leading up to the bond referendum, which voters approved by 86%.
But $2.5 billion was just the bond money approved by voters. With projected matching funds, the total value exceeded $5 billion.
Imagine losing the Chief Operating Officer of a $5 billion startup! The picture that comes to mind is that of a juggler with 180 balls in the air.
That’s how many projects Flood Control employees, consultants and contractors currently have in the works.
Zeve oversaw the transition of HCFCD from a sleepy County department that delivered about $30 million of capital improvements per year to one that delivers more than $400 million per year. That required internal process improvements, new hires, staff augmentation, implementation of new management software and more.
It also required a change in culture. The cultural shift that Russ Poppe and Matt Zeve brought to the Flood Control District produced a sense of urgency in all projects. It was based on the fact that somewhere in Harris County, it could flood tomorrow.
Zeve also led efforts to revamp how HCFCD communicates with the public, stakeholders and elected officials. The result: one of the most open and transparent government departments anywhere.
Delivering Under Pressure
He did all this under pressure that could be likened to wartime. Harris County experienced four 500-year storms from 2015 to 2019. During Harvey, an estimated 154,170 homes flooded across the county. Two thirds were outside the 100-year floodplain and did not have flood insurance. Harvey ranked as the heaviest rainfall event in North American history. Families, their life savings and whole communities were devastated.
At a time of crisis when most people would have headed to the exits, Zeve stepped up to the plate for the citizens of Harris County. To this day, he and his team are virtually the only ones in Harris County actually moving dirt to mitigate flooding.
Despite the Flood Control District’s progress, trying to serve 4.7 million people with PTSD would have challenged anyone. A few vocal people in densely-populated, low-to-moderate income neighborhoods felt they were not getting enough dollars from the flood bond. In reality, they were already receiving the lion’s share. Regardless, this vocal minority now seems to be dictating Commissioners Court policy.
When Politics Undermines Performance…
In this constant, contentious political tug-of-war, I’m sure Zeve often felt he had a thankless, 24/7 job. That had to weigh heavily on his decision to leave. Now that he’s leaving, those ignorant of his contributions and funding realities may give thanks, but the rest of the county should be alarmed.
People whom I speak with regularly tell me that the Flood Control District staff is devastated that Zeve is leaving; he was well-liked and respected. Staff are openly wondering why Commissioners Court would allow strong leaders like Russ Poppe and Matt Zeve to leave. I wonder as well. What is their end game?
Perhaps Court members want their own appointees instead of qualified and dedicated staff members. Maybe they value political persuasion over performance and protecting residents.
We will most likely never know. One could conclude that the majority on Commissioners Court may not care as much about flood mitigation as its members claim.
What Next?
Zeve’s team has more than 180 bond projects currently underway. And it could take months to find a new Deputy Executive Director. Commissioners Court still has not found a suitable replacement for Russ Poppe seven months after he resigned.
Zeve is just the latest in a long line of Harris County department leaders driven to departure for no good reason. His loss will leave a department dismayed, distracted and demoralized. Could anyone blame employees for wondering what thanks await their loyalty and hard work?
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/24/2022
1609 Days after Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/MattZeve_headshot-e1536349273560.jpg?fit=900%2C1175&ssl=11175900adminadmin2022-01-24 09:23:262024-04-20 19:45:58Matt Zeve Resigns from Harris County Flood Control District
Correction: Original plans called this development Madera. Subsequently, the developer named it Mavera. I have changed all mentions of the former to the latter because of confusion it caused as time went by.
A new 1700-acre development called Mavera at FM1314 and SH242 claims it will have “no adverse impact” on surrounding areas. However, to determine this, the authors of the drainage impact analysis used a controversial technique permitted by Montgomery County drainage regulations. It’s called “hydrologic timing.” The technique doesn’t take into account drainage from other developments in surrounding areas. Nor did it factor in the destruction of wetlands.
Outline of Mavera Development (dotted line) just north of SH242 at FM1314). For reference, Artavia (mentioned below) lies under the legend.
The Problem with Hydrologic Timing
The theory behind hydrologic timing is that if you can get your water to the river before the peak of a flood arrives, then you aren’t adding to the peak. This might have “no adverse impact” if you were the only development in a watershed. But when you’re:
Artavia, for instance, claimed that its drainage plan would get water to the West Fork 35 hours before upstream peaks arrived. Meanwhile, Mavera (literally a few hundred feet away on the other side of SH242), claims it will get its peak to Crystal Creek 28 hours before that stream’s peak arrives. Crystal Creek empties into the West Fork just upstream from Artavia’s drainage.
Natural and man-made peaks for 100-year storm on left. Engineers will get water to creek twice as fast as nature.
So you could have potentially one peak on top of another and another, etc.
Neither development accounts for peak changes induced by the other in analyses.
Now multiply that times a hundred or a thousand developments and you see the danger.
As far as I can see, the drainage impact analysis supplied by engineers makes no attempt to compare the amount of natural detention to man-made detention.
When Does Real Peak Happen and Why Does It Matter?
Engineers claim they aren’t adding to discharge; they’re just shifting the peak. But because of all the development in MoCo in the last 40 years, it’s not clear when that peak from outside the development will really happen.
In fairness, Mavera plans do show a number of detention ponds. But even with those, Mavera will still add 16,300 cubic feet per second to the West Fork in a 100-year storm. And that’s just for Phase 1 of the development! That’s why engineers say below, “will not likely have an impact on peak flows…”
From documentation supplied to MoCo engineer’s office by Torres & Associates on 2/19/21
To put that volume in perspective, during the peak of Harvey, the SJRA says the nearby West Fork carried 115,000 CFS. So Mavera will contribute 14% of Harvey’s volume at that point on the West Fork. And most people consider Harvey far more than a 100-year storm.
Problem with Higher Peaks
The hydrograph below shows how the peak on Brays Bayou shifted over time with upstream development. On the West Fork, this may already be happening.
Time of accumulation in Brays Bayou was cut in half over time, leading to higher flood peaks.From HCFCD, FEMA and Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project.
In the last 20 years, HCFCD and its partners have spent more than $700 million on flood mitigation in the Brays Bayou watershed.
The safest strategy is for new developments to “retain their rain” until the peak of a flood has passed and then release it slowly. “Retain Your Rain” is the motto of most floodplain managers. If everyone did that, there would really be “no adverse impact.”
Delaying stormwater discharges, not accelerating them, is the safest strategy.
Faster Runoff, Faster Erosion
As stormwater approaches Crystal Creek, it will encounter a steep drop that requires the use of check dams and other measures to slow water down.
Mavera runoff as it approaches Crystal Creek (left) encounters a drop that could increase erosion if not mitigated properly.
Wetlands no more. Looking east from over FM1314. Area in upper left has not yet been cleared but will be.
Land Consists Primarily of Wetlands
The hundreds of pages supplied by the Montgomery County Engineer’s Office in response to a FOIA Request show that this development tract consists “…primarily of evergreen and mixed forest and woody/herbaceous wetlands.” [Empasis added.] Yet the drainage analysis never again mentions that when it claims the development will have no adverse impact.
Looking west toward FM1314, which runs through middle of frame and US242 (upper left) Note drainage and clearing activities moving west. Area in upper right will also eventually be cleared. Note West Fork San Jacinto beyond SH242.Looking north across drainage ditch. that bisects development (see below). Many of those trees will soon be gone. The northern half of the subdivision will look like the cleared area in the foreground.Building homes over a swamp can lead to foundation shifting and cracking. Drainage from the eastern half of Mavera will flow through the concrete box culverts under FM1314 to the western half.Looking west. Note standing water in forest between ditch and SH242 (out of frame on left).Western half of development is now in initial clearing phase.Map of development showing location of drainage ditch, Crystal Creek and San Jacinto (lower left). Virtually all cleared areas to date are below the blue dotted line which represents the drainage ditch. Area below the drainage ditch appears to represent less than half of the total area.
HCFCD Position on Hydrologic Timing
Harris County Flood Control has long lobbied to eliminate hydrologic timing in drainage analyses for the reasons mentioned above. However, Montgomery County Commissioners have not acted on the proposal.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/23/2022
1608 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/20220122-DJI_0513.jpg?fit=1200%2C799&ssl=17991200adminadmin2022-01-23 17:24:002025-08-19 22:20:20New 1700-Acre MoCo Development Claims “No Adverse Impact,” But Doesn’t Study Other Areas
Almost half the watersheds in Harris County originate in surrounding counties.
Ten of 23 Harris County watersheds originate outside the county.
If upstream communities do not implement regulations that help prevent flooding, downstream communities will face increased flood risk regardless of how much money they spend on flood mitigation.
Loopholes and Omissions in Regs that Increase Flooding
In my research, I’ve discovered loopholes or omissions in regulations that, if addressed, could help reduce flooding. These will be controversial. But they deserve debate.
Maintain ditches. Get surrounding counties to maintain ditches, i.e., HCFCD. Many don’t have organizations to do that. Some even give adjoining property owners the responsibility – something clearly beyond their capability. We also need to create dedicated funding streams for maintenance that cannot be diverted. Finally, create an online map that shows what maintenance will happen when and where, so citizens can report problems when they see them.
Follow the Association of State Floodplain Managers’ recommendations for documenting “No Adverse Impact” in drainage studies. They’re more stringent than most local regs. They address topics such as water quality, erosion and sedimentation, not just water levels.
Analyze “depressions lost” through development, i.e., ponds.Require mitigation of that lost detention capacity. Again, since most counties do not require permits or inspections for clearing and grading land, there’s often no way to account for these in drainage impact analyses.
Make factors in flood studies such as Manning’s Roughness Coeffcients and soil curve numbers less subjective.Require engineering documents to show how coefficients were selected. Establish minimum values that force developers to plan for worst case scenarios. Require a sensitivity analysis that prohibits fudging the numbers.
Encourage the use of nature-based flood mitigation, i.e., bio-swales and the use of vegetation in ponds that encourages infiltration. The Corps, ASFPM and FEMA already do this.
Break up counties into at least four Atlas-14 zones.Montgomery County uses one average for the entire county. But an average increases costs on areas that receive less rain than the average rainfall. It also increases risks in areas that receive more than the average.
Include “erosion” when proving “No Adverse Impact“. Require field visits that document pre-existing erosion. Developers must ensure they will not increase erosion potential and that and no new erosion areas will be created. Erosion increases sediment build up that can decrease conveyance downstream. It also decreases water quality and maintenance intervals; and increases mitigation costs such as dredging. ASFPM says, “An adverse impact can be measured by an increase in flood stages, flood velocity, flows, the potential for erosion and sedimentation, degradation of water quality, or increased cost of public services.”
Adopt new post-Harvey flood maps. Some areas have fought Allison maps for 15 years. Other areas still base their maps on data from the 1980s. This benefits builders and harms buyers. People don’t see their true flood risk. Commissioners sometimes fight updates because they fear it will harm growth.
No matter how much money we spend on flood mitigation, if the amount of inbound water constantly increases, we won’t reduce flooding. It’s like trying to go up the down escalator.
But what’s in it for upstream communities? The answer is simple. Many are already starting to flood. Everybody lives downstream from somebody else. Without common sense flood regulations, even those that aren’t flooding yet will flood soon enough. This isn’t about increasing costs, though some will argue that. It’s about self-preservation.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/22/2022
1607 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/image.png?fit=868%2C686&ssl=1686868adminadmin2022-01-22 11:20:322022-01-22 11:36:00Opportunities for Improvement In Flood Regulations
Matt Zeve Resigns from Harris County Flood Control District
Flood mitigation efforts in Harris County just took their second major hit in less than a year. Last July, Russ Poppe, the executive director of the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) resigned after months of political backbiting. Now, Matt Zeve, the deputy executive director has resigned, too.
Zeve Background and Contributions
Zeve joined HCFCD one day after the Halloween Flood of 2015. He had a distinguished career in the private sector that led from Bachelors and Masters degrees in civil engineering at Texas A&M to one of the most important flood-control jobs in the country. Along the way, Zeve proved himself to be an accomplished engineer, a top-notch manager, a driven public servant, and a consummate communicator who handled himself with grace under pressure – all while managing the equivalent of a $5 billion startup in little more than three years. Like most good managers, Zeve shuns the spotlight, preferring to credit his talented team of employees and consultants.
Regardless, Zeve helped organize and lead the effort to build a $2.5 billion flood-bond program after Hurricane Harvey in 2017. He led 21 of 23 watershed meetings leading up to the bond referendum, which voters approved by 86%.
But $2.5 billion was just the bond money approved by voters. With projected matching funds, the total value exceeded $5 billion.
That’s how many projects Flood Control employees, consultants and contractors currently have in the works.
Zeve oversaw the transition of HCFCD from a sleepy County department that delivered about $30 million of capital improvements per year to one that delivers more than $400 million per year. That required internal process improvements, new hires, staff augmentation, implementation of new management software and more.
It also required a change in culture. The cultural shift that Russ Poppe and Matt Zeve brought to the Flood Control District produced a sense of urgency in all projects. It was based on the fact that somewhere in Harris County, it could flood tomorrow.
Zeve also led efforts to revamp how HCFCD communicates with the public, stakeholders and elected officials. The result: one of the most open and transparent government departments anywhere.
Delivering Under Pressure
He did all this under pressure that could be likened to wartime. Harris County experienced four 500-year storms from 2015 to 2019. During Harvey, an estimated 154,170 homes flooded across the county. Two thirds were outside the 100-year floodplain and did not have flood insurance. Harvey ranked as the heaviest rainfall event in North American history. Families, their life savings and whole communities were devastated.
At a time of crisis when most people would have headed to the exits, Zeve stepped up to the plate for the citizens of Harris County. To this day, he and his team are virtually the only ones in Harris County actually moving dirt to mitigate flooding.
Despite the Flood Control District’s progress, trying to serve 4.7 million people with PTSD would have challenged anyone. A few vocal people in densely-populated, low-to-moderate income neighborhoods felt they were not getting enough dollars from the flood bond. In reality, they were already receiving the lion’s share. Regardless, this vocal minority now seems to be dictating Commissioners Court policy.
When Politics Undermines Performance…
In this constant, contentious political tug-of-war, I’m sure Zeve often felt he had a thankless, 24/7 job. That had to weigh heavily on his decision to leave. Now that he’s leaving, those ignorant of his contributions and funding realities may give thanks, but the rest of the county should be alarmed.
People whom I speak with regularly tell me that the Flood Control District staff is devastated that Zeve is leaving; he was well-liked and respected. Staff are openly wondering why Commissioners Court would allow strong leaders like Russ Poppe and Matt Zeve to leave. I wonder as well. What is their end game?
Perhaps Court members want their own appointees instead of qualified and dedicated staff members. Maybe they value political persuasion over performance and protecting residents.
We will most likely never know. One could conclude that the majority on Commissioners Court may not care as much about flood mitigation as its members claim.
What Next?
Zeve’s team has more than 180 bond projects currently underway. And it could take months to find a new Deputy Executive Director. Commissioners Court still has not found a suitable replacement for Russ Poppe seven months after he resigned.
Zeve is just the latest in a long line of Harris County department leaders driven to departure for no good reason. His loss will leave a department dismayed, distracted and demoralized. Could anyone blame employees for wondering what thanks await their loyalty and hard work?
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/24/2022
1609 Days after Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
New 1700-Acre MoCo Development Claims “No Adverse Impact,” But Doesn’t Study Other Areas
Correction: Original plans called this development Madera. Subsequently, the developer named it Mavera. I have changed all mentions of the former to the latter because of confusion it caused as time went by.
A new 1700-acre development called Mavera at FM1314 and SH242 claims it will have “no adverse impact” on surrounding areas. However, to determine this, the authors of the drainage impact analysis used a controversial technique permitted by Montgomery County drainage regulations. It’s called “hydrologic timing.” The technique doesn’t take into account drainage from other developments in surrounding areas. Nor did it factor in the destruction of wetlands.
The Problem with Hydrologic Timing
The theory behind hydrologic timing is that if you can get your water to the river before the peak of a flood arrives, then you aren’t adding to the peak. This might have “no adverse impact” if you were the only development in a watershed. But when you’re:
…everybody is racing to get their drainage to the river faster instead of slower. That could be shifting the peak for the entire watershed. A nearby 2,200-acre development called Artavia also used hydrologic timing to prove no adverse impact.
Example: Two Adjacent Developments Pile It On
Artavia, for instance, claimed that its drainage plan would get water to the West Fork 35 hours before upstream peaks arrived. Meanwhile, Mavera (literally a few hundred feet away on the other side of SH242), claims it will get its peak to Crystal Creek 28 hours before that stream’s peak arrives. Crystal Creek empties into the West Fork just upstream from Artavia’s drainage.
So you could have potentially one peak on top of another and another, etc.
Now multiply that times a hundred or a thousand developments and you see the danger.
Several years ago, residents pleaded with MoCo Commissioners to outlaw such “beat the peak” analyses for this very reason. But commissioners refused.
Eliminating Nature’s Detention Ponds
The land in question is low. The US Fish & Wildlife Service shows its dotted with wetlands – nature’s detention ponds.
Even the Montgomery County Appraisal District website shows Mavera covered with swamp symbols and ponds.
As far as I can see, the drainage impact analysis supplied by engineers makes no attempt to compare the amount of natural detention to man-made detention.
When Does Real Peak Happen and Why Does It Matter?
Engineers claim they aren’t adding to discharge; they’re just shifting the peak. But because of all the development in MoCo in the last 40 years, it’s not clear when that peak from outside the development will really happen.
In fairness, Mavera plans do show a number of detention ponds. But even with those, Mavera will still add 16,300 cubic feet per second to the West Fork in a 100-year storm. And that’s just for Phase 1 of the development! That’s why engineers say below, “will not likely have an impact on peak flows…”
To put that volume in perspective, during the peak of Harvey, the SJRA says the nearby West Fork carried 115,000 CFS. So Mavera will contribute 14% of Harvey’s volume at that point on the West Fork. And most people consider Harvey far more than a 100-year storm.
Problem with Higher Peaks
The hydrograph below shows how the peak on Brays Bayou shifted over time with upstream development. On the West Fork, this may already be happening.
In the last 20 years, HCFCD and its partners have spent more than $700 million on flood mitigation in the Brays Bayou watershed.
The safest strategy is for new developments to “retain their rain” until the peak of a flood has passed and then release it slowly. “Retain Your Rain” is the motto of most floodplain managers. If everyone did that, there would really be “no adverse impact.”
Faster Runoff, Faster Erosion
As stormwater approaches Crystal Creek, it will encounter a steep drop that requires the use of check dams and other measures to slow water down.
Erosion during Harvey has already cost taxpayers more than $100 million in dredging costs and that total will go higher.
Aerial Photos Showing Work to Date
Land Consists Primarily of Wetlands
The hundreds of pages supplied by the Montgomery County Engineer’s Office in response to a FOIA Request show that this development tract consists “…primarily of evergreen and mixed forest and woody/herbaceous wetlands.” [Empasis added.] Yet the drainage analysis never again mentions that when it claims the development will have no adverse impact.
HCFCD Position on Hydrologic Timing
Harris County Flood Control has long lobbied to eliminate hydrologic timing in drainage analyses for the reasons mentioned above. However, Montgomery County Commissioners have not acted on the proposal.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/23/2022
1608 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
Opportunities for Improvement In Flood Regulations
A study has shown that one dollar spent on avoiding damages can save five dollars later on flood mitigation. So, as we focus on flood mitigation, we must not forget flood prevention.
Almost half the watersheds in Harris County originate in surrounding counties.
If upstream communities do not implement regulations that help prevent flooding, downstream communities will face increased flood risk regardless of how much money they spend on flood mitigation.
Loopholes and Omissions in Regs that Increase Flooding
In my research, I’ve discovered loopholes or omissions in regulations that, if addressed, could help reduce flooding. These will be controversial. But they deserve debate.
A Matter of Self-Preservation
No matter how much money we spend on flood mitigation, if the amount of inbound water constantly increases, we won’t reduce flooding. It’s like trying to go up the down escalator.
But what’s in it for upstream communities? The answer is simple. Many are already starting to flood. Everybody lives downstream from somebody else. Without common sense flood regulations, even those that aren’t flooding yet will flood soon enough. This isn’t about increasing costs, though some will argue that. It’s about self-preservation.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/22/2022
1607 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.