Harris County Did NOT Approve Ryko Development
4/23/25 – At a Town Hall meeting on 4/14/25, Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler implied that Harris County had “approved” a proposed 5,500 acre Ryko floodplain development in MoCo. It did not.
Wheeler, who is newly elected, likely misunderstood the nuances of reports and the outcome of meetings his predecessor held.
Documents Clear Up Misunderstanding
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) and Harris County Engineering did meet with the developer. They reviewed the developer’s preliminary drainage impact analysis when James Noack was the MoCo Precinct 3 Commissioner.
But Harris County did not approve anything in Montgomery County. That includes the development. They didn’t even review a complete drainage impact analysis.
Harris County only issued a “Letter of No Objection” to a portion of a preliminary study that concerned a bridge across Spring Creek.
Moreover, the letter and other associated documents made it clear that “not objecting” was conditional.
Engineers clearly labelled the Drainage Impact Analysis as “Preliminary.” HCFCD requested many supporting documents before it could make a final determination. Those requests included a geotechnical report (soil survey), site plans and a U.S. Army Corps permit (to name just three).
Such pre-development meetings help engineers, developers and regulators scope out the concerns of each other at an early stage before they invest thousands of hours in a project.
What Wheeler Said
Wheeler implied that Harris County had approved Ryko’s drainage impact analysis. And he implied that the approval covered the whole development which lies entirely in Montgomery County.
The purpose of Wheeler’s Town Hall Meeting was to talk about Montgomery County’s 2025 road bond and the Townsen Blvd. project within it, that ran through Ryko’s proposed development.
At one point, Wheeler said, “I don’t want to get too far in the weeds on the water portion of it (meaning flooding). … But I will tell you, they (Ryko) did submit a drainage impact analysis to the county. They also submitted it to Harris County. Harris County has already approved it.“
That didn’t sound right. So, I checked.
What Harris County Said
The highly technical, preliminary drainage analysis covered both the development and a bridge into Harris County. That may have added to Wheeler’s confusion.
Harris County says that it does NOT approve development plans in other counties.
Harris County DID issue a “Letter of No Objection” to the Harris County portion of the proposed bridge over Spring Creek.
Harris County Engineering and HCFCD provided four documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. They show definitively what Harris Country regulators saw when and how they responded. They include:
- A 2/27/23 conference report of a “pre-project” meeting between Ryko, its engineers, and the regulators. HCFCD communicated its concerns about the Harris County portion of the bridge project, potential downstream impacts, and hydrology models to be used in the final drainage impact analysis.
- A preliminary drainage impact analysis submitted by Ryko’s engineers on 10/3/24 found no adverse downstream impacts.
- The draft of a 10/25/24 letter from Chris Bennett of Harris County Flood Control to Daryl Hahn, Harris County Engineering’s Director of Permits. The letter clearly states, “HCFCD review is limited to the proposed Spring Creek Bridge only.” It also clearly stated that additional permits, plans and studies were needed.
- A 4/17/25 email from Emily Woodell, HCFCD Chief External Affairs Officer. She stated, “Our organization does not conduct development reviews for compliance with the requirements of other agencies or jurisdictions. In this case, … it appears the only element reviewed by the Flood Control District was an analysis related to the proposed bridge crossing.” Woodell further stated that “to date” Ryko had never submitted any plans for the development itself to HCFCD for review.
HCFCD’s letter also made it clear that they had not checked all of the 272 pages in the drainage impact analysis. At that point, they were simply taking the word of licensed professional engineers hired by the developer.
No Response Yet from Montgomery County Engineering
I also submitted a FOIA request to Montgomery County Engineering for their copies of the developer’s construction plans and a more recent drainage impact analysis. To date, they have not responded.
Hilarious Mistake in Drainage Impact Analysis
The preliminary drainage impact study submitted by Woolpert Engineering on behalf of Ryko contains a hilarious mistake in the second sentence of the Executive Summary. The engineers say the development lies east of 59; it’s west.
To me, that calls for third-party engineers to dive deeper into the drainage impact study. No telling what else they might find.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/23/25
2794 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.
