Scarborough Illustrates Value of Flood-Planning Group’s Recommendations

10/2/26 – At least one in five Texans currently live in floodplains. And the percentage is probably higher than that given how sporadically floodplain maps get updated. Against that backdrop, San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group (SJRFPG) has proposed 36 recommendations for the next State Flood Plan to improve our safety.

The recommendations plug gaps in legislation and regulations. They aren’t just words on paper. During the next big flood, they could mean the difference between staying dry or getting water in your house. In extreme cases, they could even make the difference between life and death.

To help dramatize the importance of these regulations, I’d like to present some real world examples in a series of posts. I’ll start with the 5300-acre proposed Scarborough development upstream from Lake Houston. It involves at least 14 of the proposed recommendations.

The Scarborough Example

One of the region’s leading hydrologists has said, “If that property gets developed, it will be like aiming a firehose at Kingwood and Humble.”

Houston City Council unanimously passed a resolution against the development. So did Harris County Commissioners Court. A Montgomery County Engineer warned of the dangers. Almost 10,000 neighbors have signed a protest petition. But Montgomery County Commissioners have yet to take a position. And the Texas General Land Office, which is responsible for managing $14 billion of federal flood mitigation dollars in Texas is backing the development, reportedly investing as much as $140 million according to State Representative Steve Toth.

The property lies almost entirely in the floodway and floodplains at the confluence of the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, Cypress Creek and Turkey Creek – one of the most flood-prone areas in the region. Ponds and wetlands dot the property. During floods, homeowners on the Scarborough property could become trapped by rising waters, which has reached approximately 25 feet above dry land near the US59 bridge over the West Fork.

So, how could the SJRFPG recommendations improve nearby public safety if adopted?

Applicable Recommendations

At a minimum, the following recommendations could affect development on the Scarborough land and public safety in surrounding areas.

• L4 – Update current statewide building codes with appropriate freeboard (safety margin above floodplain) or higher flood standards
• L7 – Clarify and expand county regulatory authority for floodplain management, land-use planning, waterway setbacks, permitting, and management of new development in unincorporated areas
• L9 – Expand funding for flood early warning systems, stream gages, low-water crossing safety improvements, flood-hazard signage, gates, and roadway warning systems
• L10 – Provide funding and incentives for conservation easements, land conservation, restoration, riparian protection, wetland protection, and landowner stewardship practices in flood-prone areas
• L12 – Support creation, consolidation, or reorganization of regional flood authorities, flood-control districts, river authority programs, drainage districts where broader regional coordination is needed
• A1 – Convert Base Level Engineering (BLE) data into regulatory information or detailed Flood Insurance Rate Maps
• A3 – Promote public education and outreach regarding flood awareness, preparedness, flood-prone areas, and the importance of protecting floodplains
• A5 – Develop state incentives for local governments to participate in the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Community Rating System (CRS) program. CRS exceeds minimum requirements of NFIP and will help achieve state flood plan requirements
• A6 – Establish a publicly available statewide database to track flood-related fatalities
• A8 – Model future flood conditions uniformly across the state
• A10 – Promote nature-based solutions, green infrastructure, floodplain preservation, conservation, and hybrid gray/green approaches
• A11 – Establish statewide building standards for minimum finished-floor elevations above the 500-year floodplain
• A14 – Improve methods for measuring and documenting flood damages, including uninsured losses, actual flooded structures, financial damages, agricultural damages, and industrial losses, rather than just relying on flood-insurance claims which undercount damages and economic consequences
• A16 – Clarify roles and responsibilities for floodplain management in extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) areas to reduce gaps or overlaps in responsibility for floodplain management, permitting, and drainage standards.

Explaining all these could take thousands of words, so let me focus on three today and discuss the rest in future posts.

Building Codes, Elevations and Overlapping Jurisdictions

Statewide Texas building codes haven’t been updated since 2021. But at that time, the legislature adopted the 2012 International Residential and Building Codes (pre-Harvey) now in effect. Cities and counties may adopt newer editions or local amendments. And two jurisdictions affecting Scarborough have, but they don’t agree.

Part of the Scarborough property lies in the City of Houston’s Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction and part lies in unincorporated Montgomery County. The greatest potential impact of modern flood-design standards isn’t on the land already in the 100-year floodplain. It’s on the land between the 100- and 500-year flood elevations. And only tiny portions of the Scarborough property lie outside the 500-year floodplain.

The latest edition of the international building code provides greater recognition of 500-year flood hazards than the 2012 edition.

One provision in the newest standards that could affect Scarborough: the movement toward regulating/designing for the 500-year floodplain rather than stopping at the traditional 100-year floodplain.

The American Society of Civil Engineers explains that the change was prompted partly by the experience of structures suffering flood damage despite complying with existing codes.

If the state adopted the latest edition of building codes, construction requirements could increase for:

• Buildings between the 500-year and 100-year floodplains
• Flood-design elevations
• Flood loads
• Flood-resistant materials
• Elevation of utilities and equipment
• Flood-proofing (especially significant for commercial buildings at ground level)

FEMA’s analysis of the newest International Codes also cites floodproofing documentation, elevators and conveying systems, manufactured homes, accessory structures and other flood-resistant construction requirements. 

Costs for structures between the new 100-year and 500-year flood zones would see the most impact.

Scarborough is unusual because of its jurisdictional circumstances involving MoCo and Houston. MoCo regs unquestionably matter in its unincorporated jurisdiction. But would Houston regulations trump MoCo’s inside its ETJ? Would new statewide codes trump Houston’s?

Depending on the answers, the Scarborough property could become uneconomical to develop. At that point, other SJFPG recommendations could come into play. But more on those in subsequent posts.

In the meantime, if you haven’t yet signed the petition against Scarborough’s development, please do so now.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/2/2026

3321 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.