When it comes to flood control in Harris County, you often hear claims of “historic disinvestment” in low-to-moderate income (LMI) neighborhoods. Residents allege that they flood because Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) funneled dollars into affluent neighborhoods for decades while ignoring lower-income watersheds. But are those claims true? Not if you look at the numbers since 2000.
What Data Shows
See the table below. I compiled it from data supplied by HCFCD in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request. The table ranks each watershed in the county by its percentage of LMI residents. It also breaks them into two groups – those with percentages of LMI residents above and below 50%.
HCFCD Spending by Watershed since 2000through the end of Q3, 2021.
Harris County has 23 watersheds.
Column 1 shows the watersheds broken into two groups – those with more or less than 50% LMI residents.
Column 2 shows the percentage of LMI residents in the watershed. Those with the highest percentages of low-income residents are the least affluent.
Column 3 shows the historic investment in flood mitigation between 2000 and the end of the third-quarter 2021.
Column 4 shows the historic investment plus inflation compounded annually.
Column 5 shows the percentage of inflation over time.
No Historic Disinvestment
In raw dollars, the eight least affluent watersheds received 61% of all dollars since 2000. Fifteen more affluent watersheds received only 39%.
The 8 less-affluent watersheds received $700 million more than the other 15!
After accounting for inflation, the eight low-to-moderate income watersheds received on average almost $300 million each. The rest received only about $90 million each.
Notice also how the rates of inflation tend to be much higher in the less affluent group. That’s because HCFCD has been spending more money in these watersheds over a longer period of time. For example: If a watershed received a $10 million project in 2000, more inflation would apply than if the investment was made yesterday.
Conclusion: I see no pattern of historic disinvestment in low-to-moderate income neighborhoods by HCFCD.
Funding Flows to Damage
The reality of flood bond spending is far more nuanced than most people have the time or desire to explore. At a high level, though, funding flows to damage.
Older neighborhoods inside the Beltway have higher flood risk because of older development regulations, older building codes, and storm sewers or ditches that have filled in with silt or vegetation. See pictures below from Halls Bayou.
Blocked street drains that turn neighborhoods into detention ponds.
The people in this neighborhood (Halls Bayou) claim they “flood every time.” But if you look at historical gage data, you will see that Halls came out of its banks at Tidwell only twice in the last 20 years – once during Harvey and once during Imelda. Harvey was bad. During Imelda, the bayou overtopped banks only by a foot.
I conclude that repeat flooding in the neighborhood shown above comes from blocked street ditches. They turn neighborhoods into giant detention ponds. But the ditches are the responsibility of Precinct Commissioners, not HCFCD.
To sum up, I do not see a pattern of historic disinvestment by HCFCD in Harris County’s LMI neighborhoods.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/25/2022
1610 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Screen-Shot-2022-01-25-at-7.07.51-AM.png?fit=758%2C1060&ssl=11060758adminadmin2022-01-25 11:27:132022-01-25 11:37:35Myth Buster: Historic Disinvestment in LMI Watersheds?
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
Myth Buster: Historic Disinvestment in LMI Watersheds?
When it comes to flood control in Harris County, you often hear claims of “historic disinvestment” in low-to-moderate income (LMI) neighborhoods. Residents allege that they flood because Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) funneled dollars into affluent neighborhoods for decades while ignoring lower-income watersheds. But are those claims true? Not if you look at the numbers since 2000.
What Data Shows
See the table below. I compiled it from data supplied by HCFCD in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request. The table ranks each watershed in the county by its percentage of LMI residents. It also breaks them into two groups – those with percentages of LMI residents above and below 50%.
Harris County has 23 watersheds.
No Historic Disinvestment
In raw dollars, the eight least affluent watersheds received 61% of all dollars since 2000. Fifteen more affluent watersheds received only 39%.
The 8 less-affluent watersheds received $700 million more than the other 15!
After accounting for inflation, the eight low-to-moderate income watersheds received on average almost $300 million each. The rest received only about $90 million each.
Notice also how the rates of inflation tend to be much higher in the less affluent group. That’s because HCFCD has been spending more money in these watersheds over a longer period of time. For example: If a watershed received a $10 million project in 2000, more inflation would apply than if the investment was made yesterday.
Funding Flows to Damage
The reality of flood bond spending is far more nuanced than most people have the time or desire to explore. At a high level, though, funding flows to damage.
Older neighborhoods inside the Beltway have higher flood risk because of older development regulations, older building codes, and storm sewers or ditches that have filled in with silt or vegetation. See pictures below from Halls Bayou.
The people in this neighborhood (Halls Bayou) claim they “flood every time.” But if you look at historical gage data, you will see that Halls came out of its banks at Tidwell only twice in the last 20 years – once during Harvey and once during Imelda. Harvey was bad. During Imelda, the bayou overtopped banks only by a foot.
I conclude that repeat flooding in the neighborhood shown above comes from blocked street ditches. They turn neighborhoods into giant detention ponds. But the ditches are the responsibility of Precinct Commissioners, not HCFCD.
To sum up, I do not see a pattern of historic disinvestment by HCFCD in Harris County’s LMI neighborhoods.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/25/2022
1610 Days since Hurricane Harvey
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.