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.

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.

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.

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:

…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.

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.

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.

From US Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory

Even the Montgomery County Appraisal District website shows Mavera covered with swamp symbols and ponds.

From Montgomery County Appraisal District Website.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

  1. Require permits for clearing and grubbing land. And require wetlands determinations before issuing these permits. Not all jurisdictions do. So, unscrupulous developers can clear land and fill wetlands. Then, when a developer applies for a construction permit, there’s no proof during the environmental inspection that wetlands ever existed.
  2. Going forward, require storm sewers large enough to prevent rainfall from going higher than the tops of curbs. Many places already do to reduce street flooding and home damage.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Require drainage analyses to examine impacts on upstream and downstream properties. Don’t just estimate the amount of runoff within a parcel’s boundaries before and after development. High detention pond walls can push water onto adjoining properties.
  7. 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.
  8. Prohibit the outsourcing of the County or City Engineer function to companies that also do other business within the jurisdiction. It’s a conflict of interest. We have seen examples of companies investigating themselves after hundreds of homes flood.
  9. Require mitigation to be constructed before any structures are permitted. Parallel development can increase runoff before ponds are ready to accept it. 
  10. 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. 
  11. 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.
  12. 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.”
  13. 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. 
  14. Avoid competing for new development with lax regulation or enforcement. It will raise mitigation costs for everyone in the long run.

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.

What Does “No Adverse Impact” Really Mean in Drainage Studies?

New developments in many jurisdictions must demonstrate “No Adverse Impact” (NAI) in drainage studies before they can get construction permits. City and county engineers want to know the development won’t harm others before they approve plans. But what does “No Adverse Impact” really mean? It depends on the jurisdiction.

Meaning Varies

Most jurisdictions require that new developments won’t add to flooding. In Montgomery County, for instance, developers do this by comparing runoff pre- and post-development. If engineers can show that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-development runoff, then they get their permit.

Such studies focus primarily on water surface elevations. But the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) has a much broader definition.

In their book, No Adverse Impact means that actions of any community or property owner, public or private, “should not adversely impact the property and rights of others.” 

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. 

ASFPM

Definition Should Apply Beyond Floodplain

According to ASFPM, “No Adverse Impact” floodplain management extends beyond the floodplain to include managing development in the watersheds where floodwaters originate. NAI does not mean no development. It means that any adverse impact caused by a project must be mitigated, preferably as provided for in the community or watershed-based plan.

Here’s a presentation that covers NAI at a high level. Some key points include:

  • Flood losses are increasing by $6 billion annually. That’s because current policies promote intensification in high risk areas. They ignore changing conditions, undervalue natural floodplain functions, and often ignore adverse impacts.
  • Even if we perfectly implemented current standards, damage will increase.
  • Floodplains change due to filling.
  • Current regulations deal primarily with how to build in a floodplain vs. how to minimize future damages.
  • NAI actually broadens property rights by protecting those adversely impacted by others.
  • Trends in case law show that Act of God defenses have been greatly reduced due to ability to predict hazards events.
  • Hydraulic models facilitate proof of causation.
  • Use of sovereign immunity has been greatly reduced in lawsuits.
  • Communities are most likely to be held liable not when they deny a permit, but when they permit a development that causes damage to others.

Where to Find More Information About NAI

ASFPM has extensive information on the guidelines for “no adverse impact.”  They include NAI How-to Guides For…

This 108-page PDF from ASFPM sums it all up in one easy-to-download file.

Recent Case Study of Adverse Impact

Earlier this week, I toured Plum Grove to survey flood damage from the January 8/9 rains.

Between Saturday afternoon on 1/8 and Sunday morning on 1/9, Plum Grove received about 6.9 inches of rain.

NOAA’s Atlas-14 rainfall probabilities for this area show that’s about a 5-year rain.

atlas 14 rainfall probabilities
NOAA’s Atlas-14 Rainfall Probability standards for the Lake Houston Area.

But rising floodwaters cut off large parts of Plum Grove – including escape routes. The new elevated City Hall nearly flooded again even though it’s far above the 100-year floodplain.

Local residents and city officials attribute their flooding woes to largely unmitigated development in nearby Colony Ridge. The City is currently suing the developer.

Flooding two weeks ago was so bad that the Plum Grove Volunteer Fire Department sealed off roads and warned people to stay out. Currents were reportedly moving fast enough to sweep cars off roads.

Photo from evening of 1/8/2022 courtesy of Plum Grove VFD after about six inches of rain.

As far as I can tell, 2004 Liberty County Subdivision Rules do not require “no adverse impact” for new developments. However, they do stipulate that “All roads and streets shall be designed to convey a 10-year storm event and not more than 6″ of water over the road in a 100-year storm event.”

Looks like the engineers missed all of those targets! This is a good example of why all jurisdictions should specify No Adverse Impact in their drainage regulations.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/20/22

1605 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.

Harris County Making Another Attempt to Shift Flood Mitigation Funds

Harris County is making another attempt to shift flood mitigation funds from outlying neighborhoods toward the city center. Here’s the latest proposal that will be considered by the Community Resilience Flood Task Force at a noon meeting today.

Key Concerns About Proposal

This proposal attempts to establish new rules for the Equity Prioritization Framework adopted by commissioners in 2019 and changed several times since. These new rules were provided to Task Force members only within the last few days even though the document is dated December 14, 2021, more than a month ago.

The rule changes apply mostly to the distribution of Trust Fund money established to supplement the flood bond if partner funding did not materialize as expected. However, the proposed changes could affect the distribution of flood bond funds that voters approved by 86% in 2018.

Proposal #1:

Place more emphasis on number of people, using structures as a proxy for people. Benefit = efficiency. 

Observation:

This may disadvantage LMI neighborhoods as those projects tend to cost more and the neighborhoods have more apartments. They also have large numbers of homes crowding channels and floodplains. So, buyout costs will be higher.  And historically, buyouts cost almost as much as construction. Also, apartments cost far more than single family homes. We need time to look at data on this.

Proposal #2:

Potential partner funding should not be considered in prioritization for use of trust funds.

Observation:

What if you could make trust fund dollars go nine times further? Typically, HUD grants require only a 10% match.

Proposal #3:

Use trust funds for projects, like street flooding, not even mentioned in the bond.

Observations:

  1. The County proposes using FEMA damage data back to 1977 to determine “Existing Level of Service.” This is a blatant attempt to tilt the playing field toward the inner city. In 1977, Beltway 8 and Intercontinental airport were still under construction. US59 was a 2-lane blacktop road. Outlying neighborhoods like Kingwood barely existed. This makes it impossible for any outlying neighborhoods to qualify for help with Trust Funds.
  2. Choosing 1977 as the starting point ignores 45 years of flood mitigation spending totaling approximately $5 billion.
  3. We don’t have enough money in the trust fund to complete all the bond projects. So, if we spend trust fund money on projects not in the bond – without partner help – it will mean cancelling bond projects somewhere else.
  4. Implementing this proposal will make it very difficult to get voters to approve future flood bonds.
street flooding
Street flooding is often caused by blocked drains. Rains can’t get to channels and streams. Fixing ditches has historically been the job of cities and precincts. HCFCD funds have focused on channels and streams. Street ditches were never mentioned in the bond.

How To Be Heard

Here is a presentation that the Community Resilience Flood Task Force will review at noon today. It provides a little more detail than the County Administrator’s description.

If this proposal concerns you, please send your comments to: CFRTFpubliccomment@gmail.com.

To view the meeting online, register at Cfrtf.harriscountytx.gov. It goes from 12-2 today.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/19/2022

1604 Days since Hurricane Harvey

RV Resort Pumping Stormwater Into Edgewater Park, Bringing in Fill

Lakewood Cove residents reported yesterday and today that contractors at the Laurel Springs RV Resort are pumping stormwater from their detention pond into Precinct 4’s Edgewater Park. The reports are true. And it’s a permit violation.

I also found contractors bringing in fill from the outside that I thought was going to be “cut” from the detention pond. All photos below were taken on 1/18/22.

Pumping From Pond onto Neighboring Property

The approved permit plans clearly state that “Stormwater runoff shall not cross property lines.”

Stamp on many pages of approved Laurel Springs RV Resort plans.

I guess at some point the water in the pond ceased being runoff. Now it’s just a nuisance. The plans said pond water would be pumped into the City storm sewers. Hmmmm.

Photographed from Laurel Springs Lane looking west.
Here’s an aerial photo looking toward Laurel Springs Lane.
Check out all the muck being washed into the woods. Those woods belong to Harris County Pct. 4. That’s part of new Edgewater Park.

Note the lack of silt fences in the two photos above. Plans clearly state that silt fences will be installed to keep silt from escaping the property. Double Hmmmm!

Bringing in Fill instead of Moving It From Within the Site

As I photographed the pumping, I noticed a parade of dump trucks bringing in fill, dumping it, and leaving as a bulldozer spread it out and another machine quickly compacted it.

Looking NW toward Lowes in top center. Note dump truck depositing fill – one of many that I watched.
The area where they deposited fill just north of the pond corresponds to the plans. See below.
Detail from mitigation plan showing NW corner of pond and fill area. For full plan, click here.

From text on the image above, I assumed that the job was to be a routine “cut and fill” operation. Maybe I shouldn’t have assumed.

Cut and Fill is an industry standard in floodplains. It means you move dirt from one part of the site to another. So, there is no additional fill brought into the floodplain. The fill area above appears to be in the .2% annual chance floodplain, according to the old FEMA map below. However, the developer did not mark the .2% chance floodplain on plans.

FEMA floodplain map. Aqua = 1% annual chance. Brown = .2% annual chance. It appears the northern part of the detention pond (not shown on this old satellite image) cuts between the aqua and brown areas.

For the record, Chapter 19 of Houston’s Code of Ordinances currently does not prohibit bringing fill into the .2% annual chance floodplain. See Section 19.34.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/18/2022

1603 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.

Post-Harvey Regulatory Update: Mixed Results to Date

Here’s a regulatory update on the synchronization of flood regs in cities and counties throughout the region.

Harris County can spend billions on flood mitigation, but if upstream communities keep sending more water downstream, we may never see improvement. That’s why Harris County Flood Control and Harris County Engineering launched an initiative to harmonize regulations in 2020. The program is still active but has had mixed results to date.

The red barrier marks the limit of Harris County. Woodridge Village in Montgomery County on the far side contributed to flooding hundreds of homes twice in five months during 2019. This image underscores the need for cooperation. Photo courtesy of Allyssa Harris.
Five Upgrades Recommended

The departments identified five key measures that they asked surrounding cities and counties to implement:

  1. Use Atlas 14 rainfall rates for sizing storm water conveyance and detention systems.
  2. Require a minimum detention rate of 0.55-acre feet per acre of detention for any new development one acre or larger. However, a single-family residential structure and accessory buildings proposed on an existing lot is exempt from providing detention.
  3. Prohibit the use of hydrograph timing as a substitution for detention on any project unless it directly outfalls into Galveston Bay.
  4. Require no net fill in the current mapped 500-year floodplain, except in areas identified as coastal zones only
  5. Require the minimum Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) of new habitable structures be established at or waterproofed to the 500-year flood elevation as shown on the effective Flood Insurance Study.

The county used partnership agreements as a lever. Communities/counties that didn’t update their regulations were not eligible for partner funds from the flood bond. The pitch worked well in some cases, partially in others, and not at all in a few. 

Where Adoption Stands

The table below shows where things stand in different communities. The three columns represent those who:

  • Already finished upgrading regulations to minimum standards.
  • Identified updates but have not yet made them
  • Have not taken any action to update their ordinances or regulations.
Cooperation status as of December 2021

EHRA is an engineering company working with Harris County to analyze current regulations and identify which areas need updates. In the last column, municipalities/counties either didn’t respond, chose not to participate, or refused. Waller, Brazoria County and Galveston County did not respond. Montgomery County said it would not participate. The other four didn’t request the free EHRA analysis when offered.

According to the Harris County Engineering Department, an analysis only takes a month. And some cities have updated their regulations within a month of completing the analysis.

In fairness, it’s important to note that some jurisdictions, such as Montgomery County, have adopted Atlas 14 standards, even if they haven’t adopted the other recommendations.

Ways to Help

Please help address the holdouts. Do you know influencers in communities that have not yet updated their regs? Can you leverage industry connections willing to show support? Spread the word within your community? Generate some buzz online? Write an email to your county commissioner or judge? Enlist the help of friends or relatives in neighboring communities?

The further we get from the pain of Harvey and Imelda, the less motivated people seem to be to adopt regulatory reforms. So please act soon.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/17/2022

1602 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.

Editorial: Need More Disclosure, Education About Flood Risk

Who teaches young home buyers about flood risk? No one in my experience.

More than forty years ago, I bought a new house next to a creek in a Dallas suburb. The trees and the view attracted me. Before I put money down, I asked about flooding and was assured that the home was two feet ABOVE the hundred-year flood plain. The homebuilder even showed me a survey and a drainage study, and pointed to the engineers’ stamps. I pulled out my checkbook and made the most tragic, costly decision of my young life.

Within a year, other developers just upstream from me built the Collin Creek Mall and Plano became the fastest growing city in America. With each passing month, rains made the creek swell higher. Then one day after a modest rain, I saw a pickup truck floating down the creek and the water creeped into my house.

Alarmed, I called the City Engineer. He convened a task force that included Garland, Richardson and Plano City Engineers. They asked the Army Corps of Engineers to re-survey the creek. The Corps found that…

…instead of being two feet above the 100-year floodplain, we were now 10 feet below it.

Had I known such dramatic change could happen so quickly, I never would have bought the home. I decided to sell, disclosed the flood risk, and lost a pile of money.

Costly Lessons Learned

That experience taught me several lessons.

  • Flood forecasting is a very inexact science. Changing conditions – such as upstream development, climate and political priorities – make it so. They are beyond the ability of engineers to predict.
  • Developers use the surveys and analyses that engineers produce to obtain building permits.
  • Their documents do not reflect the potential for future change.
  • Homebuilders, nevertheless, use the engineering documents to reassure future buyers that they are safe.

All along the way, people throughout the value chain make expensive binary decisions based on documents that don’t reflect future flood-risk. Permit or don’t? Invest or don’t? Build or don’t? Lend or don’t?

Flood Risk is Non-Binary, Flood Education Non-Existent

Professionals understand the flood risks involved. Members of the public rarely do. And that’s a powerful argument for flood-risk education and fuller disclosure.

But buy a house with a view of a river! You’ve achieved the American Dream, paid a premium, and the only information people volunteer along the way is a reminder to buy flood insurance.

It’s as if the chance of flooding equals the chance of getting hit by lightning.

According to the CDC, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are only around 1 in 500,000.

But the odds of flooding in a “500-year rain” are 1 in 500 – a thousand times greater. But most home buyers don’t worry about that. So builders keep building in flood plains. And buyers keep buying.

Everyone along the way – land owners, developers, public officials, engineers, and home builders – is financially incentivized to “make the sale.” Growth is good – especially to the people who enable it.

Example: Need for Flood-Risk Education

Below is a photo that shows part of a new development in Porter between Sorters-McClellan Road and the San Jacinto West Fork. At the start of 2019, it was all woods and wetlands bracketed by streams and a drainage ditch. Wetlands and the proximity to floodways increase flood risk.

New woodless Northpark Woods development in the floodplain of the San Jacinto West Fork.

However, FEMA’s current flood map (see below) was developed in 2014. That was before Harvey. It shows about half of the development (outlined in red) to be in the 100- or 500-year floodplains. But those floodplains will soon expand based on data collected after Harvey. The new flood plains will likely cover most of the site. But is anyone disclosing the current or potential flood risk?

Northpark Woods highlighted in red. Floodplains delineated based on 2014 map which is now being revised and will be released soon. Cross-hatch = floodway. Aqua = 100-year floodplain. Brown = 500-year floodplain. From FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Viewer.

Selling the Dream vs. Disclosing Risk

Young, first-time home buyers will mortgage themselves to the hilt to get a nice home with a water view. But there’s less risk disclosure on this developer’s website than on the back of a candy bar.

New homes here range from $225,000 to more than $300,000 with estimated mortgages starting at about $1,000 per month. The developer claims, “Our homes are where memories are made, families are raised and stories unfold. Our mission is to create thriving, enduring neighborhoods by building new homes with lasting livability.”

The developer’s website also boasts of “close proximity to the West Fork San Jacinto River where locals enjoy swimming, fishing, boating and skiing…” And they brag about nearby championship golf courses, owner financing, online buying, and $95 down. But they never mention flood-risk or even flood insurance once the website that I could find.

A home in the 100-year floodplain has, on average a 1-in-4 chance of flooding during the life of a 30-year mortgage. And keep in mind that those floodplains are shifting targets. Even a home in the 500-year floodplain has a 6% chance of flooding in 30 years.

All up and down the West Fork, East Fork, Bens Branch, Spring Creek, Peach Creek, White Oak Creek, Luce Bayou, Tarkington Bayou, and other area watersheds, similar developments are sprouting up in risky places.

People put their life savings in these homes and there’s less disclosure than on a candy bar.

Realistically, that’s not going to change. So “Buyer Beware”! People must educate themselves about flood risk. Start by referring friends and relatives in the market for a home to these posts. They explain where to find reliable, objective information about flooding and flood risk.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/16/2022

1601 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.

Townsend Reserve, Splendora Crossing Drainage Analyses Omit Mention of New Flood Maps

A week ago, I posted about two large parcels of land being cleared south and west of Splendora High School on FM2090 in Montgomery County. At the time, I thought they might be part of the same development. Since then, I have learned that two different companies own the parcels: Townsend Reserve Ltd. and Forestar USA. However, both used the same companies – Elevation Land Solutions and WGA – for engineering.

Parcel owners and sizes. Green = land being cleared. Red = not yet clearing land. From: Montgomery County Appraisal District.

This post will focus primarily on Townsend Reserve. A previous post discussed Forestar’s property, Splendora Crossing.

WGA developed the drainage impact analyses for both developments using 2014 flood maps (see Townsend’s below). New maps are currently in development, but neither analysis mentions that. In fairness, WGA did attempt to calculate new flood elevations using its own measurements. But illustrations showing the old floodplain outlines, without mention of coming changes, may mislead potential buyers.

Townsend Reserve Map showing floodplain outline in white is based on 2014 map. Homes in dark shaded area will be elevated.

Elevation Land Solutions developed the construction plans for Townsend. It disclosed flood risk more fully.

Disclosure found on virtually every page of construction plans by Elevation Land Solutions. Note second paragraph.

It’s unclear at this time whether Montgomery County itself will attempt to update flood maps based on data acquired since Harvey. That could help buyers, but hurt builders.

Townsend Owned by Camcorp Management

I found little information about Townsend Reserve online except a certificate of formation on the Texas Secretary of State website.

It shows that Townsend Reserve, Ltd. was formed in September 2020 by general partner, Camcorp Management Inc. Both show addresses at 10410 Windermere Lakes Blvd., Houston, TX 77065. Camcorp was formed in 1993 and is associated with several developments in the region, including Brooklyn Trails in Porter. Executives of Camcorp Management are also officers in several homebuilding companies.

High-Density Development

Like Brooklyn Trails, construction documents show that Townsend Reserve will be a high-density development.

Townsend Reserve will contain many long, skinny lots with little room between homes.
Diagram of detention pond layouts from Townsend Reserve’s Drainage Impact Analysis.

Photos of Land Clearing To Date

I took the two photos below on 1/6/2022. They show the extent of current clearing and drainage mitigation.

Looking west along FM2090 at northern portion of Townsend Reserve. That square of trees in the middle of the shot will eventually become a small retail center serving the development.
Looking SW over FM2090 at southern portion of Townsend Reserve

Drainage Analysis Claims “No Adverse Impact”

The drainage impact analysis for Townsend Reserve concludes that the proposed project and associated drainage features will result in “no adverse impact” to existing flood hazard conditions along Gully Branch for storm events up to and including the 100-year event. “No adverse impact” is the gold standard. Engineers must certify it before Montgomery County will approve their plans.

Engineers do this by showing that the estimated runoff after development is no greater than the runoff before development. Detention ponds and channels supposedly hold back the increased peaks due to faster runoff...if all their assumptions and calculations are correct.

The 115.7-acre initial phase of Townsend Reserve’s development include a bypass channel and stormwater detention basin located along the south side of Gully Branch. You can clearly see both in the photos above.

The ultimate development will include the construction of two additional storm water detention basins.

WGA Drainage Impact Analysis

For both Phase 1 and ultimate development, portions of the site will be elevated using fill from excavation of the bypass channel and detention basins. Engineers call this practice “cut and fill.” They do not bring fill into the flood plain. They just move the dirt around. So there’s no reduction of floodplain capacity.

Portions of this fill will be located within the 1% annual chance floodplain based on the 2014 map. WGA’s Drainage Impact Analysis claims, “The proposed project results in lower flood profiles throughout the project reach, and an overall reduction in floodplain storage volume. However, the proposed drainage features provide a more efficient use of the available floodplain storage volume, resulting in no increase in peak flows downstream.”

Analysis Based on Atlas-14 Rainfall, but Old Flood Maps

New post-Harvey flood maps due to be released within months will reportedly show the 100-year floodplain expanding into the 500-year floodplain in most places. That could dramatically alter some of the assumptions above. However, I can find no references to new maps in either WGA analysis for Splendora Crossing or Townsend Reserve.

Montgomery County Atlas-14 requirements are slightly lower than those in the Lake Houston Area because of slightly less rainfall. Therefore, the proposed drainage features for Townsend will result in slightly less detention capacity.

168 acre feet of detention equals .57 acre feet per acre. If this development were in Harris County .65 acre feet per acre would be required.

To see Townsend Reserve’s entire entire drainage impact analysis, click here.

In fairness to developers, they can’t put their plans on hold indefinitely while new flood maps are drawn and approved. However, in fairness to buyers, you would think the engineering documents would at least disclose the potential of new maps. Likewise, what are man-made and natural factors that increase flood risk, as Elevation Land Solutions pointed out above?

The standards for disclosure in engineering seem lower than the standards for many other industries. I’ve read fuller disclosures on an aspirin bottle.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/15/2022

1600 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.

Photos of Kingwood’s First RV Resort after Heavy Rains Last Weekend

One thing became immediately clear after reviewing aerial photos of the Kingwood area’s first RV resort last Monday. The heavy rains created a mud pit. After removing every tree and blade of grass on these 20 acres, the owners of this project will have to pave over virtually the entire site to make it useable.

I took all photos below on Sunday morning 1/9/22 after heavy rains stopped, but between sporadic light rains.

Laurel Springs RV Resort after Heavy Weekend Rains

Looking NW from over Laurel Springs Lane at Kingwood’s first RV resort and its detention pond after a 5.5 inch rain.
Silt seems to be piling up along silt fence on right, an indication of how site is sloped.
Contractors are starting to build roads. But look at ponding on either side of first one.
Looking SSE across RV resort from over UP railroad tracks at Lakewood Cove.
Rains can delay construction by making it difficult to work the ground.
Note drainage running down Centerpoint utility corridor.
Note heavy erosion and debris in detention pond.
Currently lip of detention pond is below road level. Overflow from pond will likely go into Edgewater Park’s cypress ponds below hill.

Bad News, Good News

Most of the initial fears that Lakewood Cove residents had about this site remain valid. Railroad noise. Traffic safety. Road destruction. School impact. And more.

However, after seeing the response of the site to last weekend’s heavy rains, I’m less concerned about the site flooding Lakewood Cove if the southern lip of the detention pond remains at its current height.

Presently, the pond lip is much lower than the road as you can see in the photo above. If it stays that way, overflow stormwater will go down the hill west of Laurel Springs into what will soon become Precinct 4’s new Edgewater Park.

It’s important to keep in mind that last weekend’s storm was a 2- to 5-year storm, according to Jeff Lindner, Harris County’s meteorologist. So this wasn’t a very big test of the resort’s drainage systems. A hundred year storm would drop three times the rainfall.

The pond currently has half the required capacity to meet current rainfall standards. Still, last weekend was significant. Kingwood was among the hardest hit areas in Harris County.

However, there’s also a significant amount of dirt piled on the northern lip of the pond. It’s unclear where contractors will put that. If they use it to build up the southern lip, that could change the game.

Clearly, the owners lucked out with the timing of this storm. They substantially completed the detention pond before the storm. Otherwise, this could have turned into another Woodridge Village/Elm Grove situation.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/14/2022

1599 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.