4/27/25 – A drainage ditch that runs under Kingwood Drive about a tenth of a mile west of Kingwood High School is blocked. Where the ditch runs through the median, it has become so overgrown, you cannot even see it.
Historical images in Google Earth suggest that the City has not cleared the ditch since 2002. Full height trees have grown up in it, contributing to the blockage.
During Harvey, Kingwood High School flooded to the second floor. Four-thousand students had to be bussed to other schools for a year during decontamination and reconstruction.
Kingwood High School during Harvey. Kingwood Drive (upper left), one of the area’s main evacuation routes, was also cut off.
Ditch is So Overgrown, You Can’t See It
Harris County Flood Control labels the ditch as G-103-36-01. It crosses under Kingwood Drive about one-tenth of a mile west of Valley Manor and the high school.
See the pictures below. Can you even see where the ditch is? Hint: it’s in the center of the frame.
Looking slightly south. Lake Kingwood is toward the topof the frame.Opposite direction. The ditch runs between the two storm drains on either side of Kingwood Drive.From a lower elevation, you can see under the forest canopy. Still no clear path for drainage.
The City has cleared all the other ditches in the map above, but not this one. It’s so overgrown, they likely can’t find it and confuse it with one of the other ditches they’ve already cleared.
Because this blockage has the potential to cut off a major evacuation route, we can’t afford to wait any longer.
I have reported it previously several times already. To be clear, Harris County Flood Control District is responsible for keeping the channel clear. But the City is responsible for cleaning out the channel under its roads, i.e., Kingwood Drive.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/27/25
2798 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250427-DJI_20250427170326_0252_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-04-27 19:09:112025-04-27 19:18:29Blocked Ditch Under Kingwood Drive Near High School
4/26/25 – Where does Texas get its money and why does it matter?
According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau analyzed by the Pew Foundation, the State of Texas received almost as much revenue from the Federal Government as it did from taxes in 2022.
That means that cutbacks in federal spending could affect disaster preparedness, flood mitigation, and recovery efforts in the Lone Star State at a time when more and more hurricanes are rapidly intensifying.
Texas Gets 38% of Its Money From Federal Government
In 2022, the last full year for which the Census Bureau has published data, Texas received 38% of its revenue from the federal government.
The percentage peaked in Texas during the Pandemic, but otherwise has hovered in the 30-40% range for the last quarter century.
How States Use Federal Money
According to Pew, the funding states receive from the U.S. government helps pay for public services, such as health care; education and training; public safety and justice; housing and community development; child care; transportation; and infrastructure.
In Texas, billions also help mitigate flooding in the form of buyouts; grants for studies; and design and construction of flood-reduction projects.
Budget Cuts Could Impact Disaster Spending
Recent budget cuts driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration have significantly impacted both the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), affecting disaster preparedness.
The cuts come in the form of program terminations, staff reductions, and shifts in responsibilities. The administration has signaled intentions to drastically reduce or even eliminate FEMA’s role in disaster response, shifting responsibilities to states.
The reductions not only diminish the federal government’s capacity to respond to emergencies, but also place additional burdens on state and local governments to fill the gaps left by these federal withdrawals.
Recent studies indicate a notable increase in the frequency and magnitude of rapid intensification events:
Increased Frequency Near Coastlines: The frequency of rapidly intensifying storms within 240 miles of coastlines has significantly increased over the past 40 years. National Geographic
Higher Intensification Rates: Between 1971 and 2020, mean maximum intensification rates for Atlantic tropical cyclones increased by up to 28.7% compared to earlier decades. Nature
Global Trends: The occurrence of rapid intensification events has tripled in global coastal regions from 1980 to 2020, highlighting a worldwide trend.
These changes are largely attributed to warmer ocean temperatures, which provide more energy for storms, and a more humid atmosphere. Wikipedia+1The Atlantic+1
Recent Examples of Rapid Intensification
Several recent hurricanes exemplify this alarming trend:
Hurricane Otis (2023): Transformed from a tropical storm to a Category 5 hurricane with 165 mph winds in less than 24 hours before striking Acapulco, Mexico.
Hurricane Milton (2024): Rapidly intensified from a Category 1 to a Category 5 hurricane within 12 hours over the Gulf of Mexico, fueled by exceptionally warm sea surface temperatures. The Atlantic
Hurricane Beryl (2024): Became the earliest Category 5 hurricane on record in the Atlantic, intensifying rapidly due to unusually warm ocean waters.
Implications for Coastal Communities
The increasing frequency of rapid intensification events poses significant risks, including:
Reduced Preparation Time: Communities have less time to prepare and evacuate, increasing the potential for loss of life and property.
Forecasting Challenges: Rapid changes in storm intensity complicate forecasting efforts, making it harder to provide accurate warnings.
Increased Damage Potential: Stronger storms can lead to more severe flooding, higher storm surges, and greater overall destruction.
Given these trends, it’s crucial for coastal regions, including Texas, to enhance their disaster preparedness plans and capabilities.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Texas-Funding-Pie-Chart-e1745708000203.png?fit=1100%2C652&ssl=16521100adminadmin2025-04-26 17:58:282025-04-27 07:30:13Where Texas Gets Its Money and Why It Matters
4/25/25 – A company called Ryko has proposed building a 5,500 acre development in southern Montgomery County, immediately west of US59. More than half of their land lies in the floodway and floodplains of Spring Creek and the West Fork.
The Ryko property is 20 times larger than the Woodridge Village property, which flooded hundreds of Kingwood homes twice in 2019. Did we learn anything from that experience?
Looking NW from over the US59/San Jacinto bridge at the general area where Ryko owns more than 5,500 acres it wants to develop.
A knowledgeable, concerned resident sent a list of concerns which I am reprinting below. However, the writer has asked to remain anonymous. I’ve also included links to posts and official documents at the end of the letter, so readers can find relevant information in one place.
– Start of Letter –
I am writing as a concerned citizen to express strong opposition to the proposed Ryko (Townsen) Development in southern Montgomery County and to raise questions about the lack of transparency and integrity surrounding its approval process, drainage study, floodplain impacts, and associated public funding mechanisms.
This project raises significant public interest concerns that demand further scrutiny before any development proceeds.
⚠️ Floodplain Fill and Inadequate Drainage Analysis
The development proposes significant floodplain fill in and near the 100-year and 500-year flood zones of Spring Creek and the West Fork San Jacinto River.
The developer’s own drainage study acknowledges increased water surface elevations during the 2- and 10-year storm events—then dismisses them for “future mitigation.”
The proposed Townsen Blvd bridge is modeled using outdated HEC-RAS v3.0.1 steady flow methods, failing to account for dynamic storm conditions or backwater effects common to this area.
Critically, the drainage report does not evaluate a Harvey-scale event, despite the project’s location at the confluence of two major watersheds severely impacted during Hurricane Harvey.
🛑 No Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) has been approved by FEMA or signed by the Harris County Floodplain Administrator. Without this, any fill in the floodplain would violate federal NFIP regulations (44 CFR § 60.3).
🌊 Unequal Mitigation Practices Across County Lines
The drainage study mitigates 1:1 for fill in the 500-year floodplain in Harris County, but in Montgomery County, it only mitigates for fill placed in the 100-year floodplain.
While this may technically comply with Montgomery County’s regulations, it is not best practice, especially in a watershed with regional downstream consequences.
💧 Analogy: Filling the floodplain without mitigation is like filling half a bathtub with sandbags and expecting the water to stay still—it doesn’t. It simply gets pushed elsewhere, potentially flooding neighboring properties.
🗺️ Use of Outdated Models – MAAPnext Ignored
The report uses base models from the San Jacinto Regional Master Drainage Plan but fails to incorporate MAAPnext, the updated floodplain modeling system developed by FEMA and HCFCD.
MAAPnext is being adopted as the regulatory standard in Harris County and includes better data for rainfall, topography, and land use.
This development should be reevaluated using MAAPnext before any approvals are granted by FEMA, Montgomery County, or Harris County.
🚦 Traffic Analysis Skipped in Violation of County Review Order
Montgomery County regulations clearly require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to be reviewed before a Drainage Impact Analysis (DIA) is approved.
There is no indication that a TIA has been submitted or approved. Approving the drainage study without first completing the TIA violates the county’s own development review process.
📝 Montgomery County’s Own Records Show Deep Reservations
In the March 22, 2023 meeting minutes, Montgomery County engineers stated clearly that development in this flood-prone area “should be avoided.”
They also noted they may not support the required CLOMR/LOMR filings.
This clearly shows that the project is far from approved—despite misleading public statements to the contrary.
🌱 Wetlands Presence and Permitting Gaps
The drainage report states that wetlands are present throughout the site, but a formal wetland delineation and jurisdictional determination has not been completed.
If any of these wetlands are deemed jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act, then a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required.
Proceeding without this determination and permit could constitute a federal violation.
💰 Tax Abatements, Bond Spending, and Conflicts of Interest
In 2017, Montgomery County granted a tax abatement to the Ryko development before these drainage and environmental concerns were studied.
In fall 2024, the County extended that abatement and removed the requirement to build the Spring Creek bridge, still awarding nearly $28 million in tax benefits to the developer.
At the same time, the County included $42 million in the November 2024 road bond to fund the northern segment of Townsen Blvd—primarily benefitting this development.
Although this section of Townsen was later removed from the bond project list, residents do not trust that it won’t proceed anyway, and many now plan to vote against the bond.
🧾 PAC Influence and Consultant Conflicts
A political action committee called Montgomery in Motion was formed to promote the bond.
From what I understand, major engineering firms that stand to receive design contracts from the bond appear to be contributors.
It is suspected that support for the bond may be informally tied to future consultant work.
I have not yet found campaign finance disclosures, but a prominent engineering firm has been actively speaking to trade groups promoting the bond, and unsolicited text messages are being sent to voters.
With nearly $100 million of bond proceeds projected to go to consultants, this raises serious conflict of interest concerns.
✅ What Should Happen Now
No construction or floodplain fill should proceed without an approved FEMA CLOMR.
The drainage models must be rerun using MAAPnext for accuracy and relevance.
Montgomery County should require 1:1 mitigation for all floodplain fill, including in the 500-year zone.
Traffic and wetland reviews must be completed before any drainage approval is valid.
Campaign finance disclosures for Montgomery in Motion should be made public before the bond election.
County and agency leaders must publicly acknowledge that this project is not approved.
The people of Montgomery County deserve flood-resilient development, honest governance, and responsible fiscal stewardship. As it stands, this project and its supporting bond failed on all three counts.
Letter from Montgomery County Engineering objecting to Ryko’s preliminary drainage study on 6/18/24. “Given both the history of this development and a sincere concern for the safety of the public, I can in no way approve this primary drainage study nor should anyone as the risk is too high.”
A letter from Montgomery County Engineering on 7/23/24, rescinding the previous letter (without explanation) that objected to the drainage study.
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. Letter states, “HCFCD review is limited to the proposed Spring Creek Bridge only.” It also clearly stated that additional permits, plans and studies were needed.
It remains to be seen whether we learned anything from the Woodridge Village experience.
Anonymous letter posted by Bob Rehak on 4/25/25
2796 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/2025/04/Ryko-Land.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2025-04-25 16:32:482025-05-06 14:08:27Lengthy Catalog of Concerns about Proposed Ryko Development
Blocked Ditch Under Kingwood Drive Near High School
4/27/25 – A drainage ditch that runs under Kingwood Drive about a tenth of a mile west of Kingwood High School is blocked. Where the ditch runs through the median, it has become so overgrown, you cannot even see it.
Historical images in Google Earth suggest that the City has not cleared the ditch since 2002. Full height trees have grown up in it, contributing to the blockage.
During Harvey, Kingwood High School flooded to the second floor. Four-thousand students had to be bussed to other schools for a year during decontamination and reconstruction.
Ditch is So Overgrown, You Can’t See It
Harris County Flood Control labels the ditch as G-103-36-01. It crosses under Kingwood Drive about one-tenth of a mile west of Valley Manor and the high school.
See the pictures below. Can you even see where the ditch is? Hint: it’s in the center of the frame.
The City has cleared all the other ditches in the map above, but not this one. It’s so overgrown, they likely can’t find it and confuse it with one of the other ditches they’ve already cleared.
Because this blockage has the potential to cut off a major evacuation route, we can’t afford to wait any longer.
I have reported it previously several times already. To be clear, Harris County Flood Control District is responsible for keeping the channel clear. But the City is responsible for cleaning out the channel under its roads, i.e., Kingwood Drive.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/27/25
2798 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Where Texas Gets Its Money and Why It Matters
4/26/25 – Where does Texas get its money and why does it matter?
According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau analyzed by the Pew Foundation, the State of Texas received almost as much revenue from the Federal Government as it did from taxes in 2022.
That means that cutbacks in federal spending could affect disaster preparedness, flood mitigation, and recovery efforts in the Lone Star State at a time when more and more hurricanes are rapidly intensifying.
Texas Gets 38% of Its Money From Federal Government
In 2022, the last full year for which the Census Bureau has published data, Texas received 38% of its revenue from the federal government.
Texas receives more than the national average in terms of the percentage of its funds received from the federal government.
Over time, the percentage has trended up.
The percentage peaked in Texas during the Pandemic, but otherwise has hovered in the 30-40% range for the last quarter century.
How States Use Federal Money
According to Pew, the funding states receive from the U.S. government helps pay for public services, such as health care; education and training; public safety and justice; housing and community development; child care; transportation; and infrastructure.
In Texas, billions also help mitigate flooding in the form of buyouts; grants for studies; and design and construction of flood-reduction projects.
Budget Cuts Could Impact Disaster Spending
Recent budget cuts driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration have significantly impacted both the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), affecting disaster preparedness.
The cuts come in the form of program terminations, staff reductions, and shifts in responsibilities. The administration has signaled intentions to drastically reduce or even eliminate FEMA’s role in disaster response, shifting responsibilities to states.
The reductions not only diminish the federal government’s capacity to respond to emergencies, but also place additional burdens on state and local governments to fill the gaps left by these federal withdrawals.
Axios published a story on 4/25/25 about the effects of staff and budget cuts on FEMA headlined “FEMA staff fear they aren’t ready for 2025 hurricane season.”
More Hurricanes Rapidly Intensifying
Sea surface temperatures in the Gulf are already raising concerns.
Recent studies indicate a notable increase in the frequency and magnitude of rapid intensification events:
These changes are largely attributed to warmer ocean temperatures, which provide more energy for storms, and a more humid atmosphere. Wikipedia+1The Atlantic+1
Recent Examples of Rapid Intensification
Several recent hurricanes exemplify this alarming trend:
Implications for Coastal Communities
The increasing frequency of rapid intensification events poses significant risks, including:
Given these trends, it’s crucial for coastal regions, including Texas, to enhance their disaster preparedness plans and capabilities.
Tax-Free Emergency Supplies Through 28th
And that reminds me, emergency supplies such as batteries, flashlights and generators, are tax free this weekend. So stock up now. Here’s a list of tax free items from April 26-28.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/26/25
2797 Days since Hurricane Harvey
Lengthy Catalog of Concerns about Proposed Ryko Development
4/25/25 – A company called Ryko has proposed building a 5,500 acre development in southern Montgomery County, immediately west of US59. More than half of their land lies in the floodway and floodplains of Spring Creek and the West Fork.
The Ryko property is 20 times larger than the Woodridge Village property, which flooded hundreds of Kingwood homes twice in 2019. Did we learn anything from that experience?
A knowledgeable, concerned resident sent a list of concerns which I am reprinting below. However, the writer has asked to remain anonymous. I’ve also included links to posts and official documents at the end of the letter, so readers can find relevant information in one place.
– Start of Letter –
I am writing as a concerned citizen to express strong opposition to the proposed Ryko (Townsen) Development in southern Montgomery County and to raise questions about the lack of transparency and integrity surrounding its approval process, drainage study, floodplain impacts, and associated public funding mechanisms.
This project raises significant public interest concerns that demand further scrutiny before any development proceeds.
⚠️ Floodplain Fill and Inadequate Drainage Analysis
🛑 No Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) has been approved by FEMA or signed by the Harris County Floodplain Administrator. Without this, any fill in the floodplain would violate federal NFIP regulations (44 CFR § 60.3).
🌊 Unequal Mitigation Practices Across County Lines
💧 Analogy: Filling the floodplain without mitigation is like filling half a bathtub with sandbags and expecting the water to stay still—it doesn’t. It simply gets pushed elsewhere, potentially flooding neighboring properties.
🗺️ Use of Outdated Models – MAAPnext Ignored
🚦 Traffic Analysis Skipped in Violation of County Review Order
📝 Montgomery County’s Own Records Show Deep Reservations
🌱 Wetlands Presence and Permitting Gaps
💰 Tax Abatements, Bond Spending, and Conflicts of Interest
🧾 PAC Influence and Consultant Conflicts
✅ What Should Happen Now
The people of Montgomery County deserve flood-resilient development, honest governance, and responsible fiscal stewardship. As it stands, this project and its supporting bond failed on all three counts.
– End of Letter –
For More Information
For posts about the Ryko development, see:
22.11.19 A Townsen Bridge Across Spring Creek
25.04.17 MoCo Commissioner Taking Townsen Blvd. Extension Off 2025 Road Bond
25.04.18 Bald Eagles Live Where Developer Wants to Build 7,000 Homes
25.04.19 Building 7,000 Homes Here Would Accelerate Subsidence
25.04.20 Far More Proposals in State Flood Plan Than Funds For Them
25.04.23 Harris County Did NOT Approve Ryko Development
For official documents, see:
Pre-Project Meeting Minutes of lead Ryko engineering company with Harris County Engineering and Flood Control District from 2/27/23.
Townsen Bridge Development Meeting Minutes between the lead Ryko engineering Company and Montgomery County Engineering (Extracted from Drainage Analysis below as separate file. Was Appendix A.) MoCo Engineering office states that development should be avoided due to high risk of flooding during extreme events. 3/22/23
Letter from Montgomery County Engineering objecting to Ryko’s preliminary drainage study on 6/18/24. “Given both the history of this development and a sincere concern for the safety of the public, I can in no way approve this primary drainage study nor should anyone as the risk is too high.”
A letter from Montgomery County Engineering on 7/23/24, rescinding the previous letter (without explanation) that objected to the drainage study.
Preliminary drainage impact analysis submitted by Ryko’s engineers on 10/3/24.
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. Letter states, “HCFCD review is limited to the proposed Spring Creek Bridge only.” It also clearly stated that additional permits, plans and studies were needed.
Montgomery County subdivision regulations: See section on Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements.
It remains to be seen whether we learned anything from the Woodridge Village experience.
Anonymous letter posted by Bob Rehak on 4/25/25
2796 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.