4/17/2025 – Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler’s office says he is taking the controversial Townsen Blvd. extension off of the County’s 2025 Road Bond. However, as of 4 P.M. this afternoon, the county’s website does not yet reflect the deletion.
Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler addressing Town Hall meeting about Townsen Blvd. and the 2025 MoCo Road Bond.
The change comes after a Town Hall meeting last night at which the commissioner heard a crowd of angry residents express their concerns about the Townsen Blvd. extension. The extension would open up 5,500 flood-prone acres, where a developer plans to build 7,000 homes.
No one spoke in favor of the road project, which includes three segments.
The cancellation of the County’s portion of the project could make it more difficult for a private developer to build a separate segment beyond that. The developer would have no thoroughfare to connect to.
Contractually, that separate segment must be completed by the end of 2030 if the developer hopes to get reimbursed $27 million from County tax revenues for building the road.
Road Plans Included Three Separate Segments
At the start of the meeting Wheeler explained that the entire road, as originally conceived, stretched from the Grand Parkway to Spring Creek on the south in three discrete segments. A bridge over Spring Creek was to have connected the Montgomery County portion of Townsen to the Harris County portion of Townsen Blvd.
Going into last night’s meeting, financing of the second segment (dotted green line) was to have come from Montgomery County’s 2025 Road Bond.
The third segment (shown in red) was to have been financed through a “381 Agreement” between Ryko, Montgomery County and several utility districts.
Controversy Surrounding 381 Agreement
Under a Texas 381 Agreement, if a developer builds a road and developments around it, the county reimburses the developer for their expenses. That reimbursement comes out of future tax revenues from the new residents. Such agreements encourage economic development.
According to Wheeler, his predecessor, James Noack, initially signed the 381 agreement with Ryko in 2018. The contract required them to complete the road by the end of 2027. But they still have not started construction, jeopardizing that deadline.
So, before Noack left office at the end of 2024, he signed an agreement to extend the deadline to 2030. That gave the developer three more years.
But Noack pushed the deadline extension through Commissioners Court on a “consent agenda.” Here’s where the plot thickens. Typically, consent agendas are reserved for non-controversial items, such as fixing a pothole.
However, the portion of the road covered by this 381 agreement was and is controversial for several reasons.
Last night, residents expressed concerns about decreases in property values along with increases in crime, traffic, flooding, and taxes. Residents also worried about the impacts on traffic safety and area schools.
This deal is very controversial and according to Wheeler should never have gone on the consent agenda.
Deadline Extension Also Fundamentally Changed Developer’s Obligation
Wheeler also pointed out that the deadline extension fundamentally changed the deal. The original agreement obligated Ryko to build the bridge over Spring Creek. However, the three-year deadline extension obligates them only to build the road – not the bridge. He also said the county has no plans to build that bridge, nor is it in the 2025 Road Bond.
Wheeler explained he had little to no power to stop the road or the agreement. “You cannot deny access to a public right of way to a property owner,” said Wheeler. But residents complained nonetheless.
Wheeler said that he met with Ryko and tried to buy the land from them. But he said they wanted “nine figures.” That would be somewhere north of $100,000,000 for 5,500 acres. And that would make the price per acre a whopping $18,000…for land that is largely in a floodplain and pockmarked with wetlands.
The land sits at the tip of a funnel where the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek and Cypress Creek all come together. FEMA’s flood map below shows just how flood prone the area is.
Ryko and its partner, Pacific-Indio Properties, own the land bounded by red box. Cross-hatched = floodway. Aqua = 100-year floodplain. Brown = 500-year floodplain.
Wheeler also said that Harris County Flood Control previously offered to buy 1,800 acres of Ryko’s land – the portions closest to the West Fork and Spring Creek. However, the developer wanted $15 million. Flood Control couldn’t afford it. The land would have cost more than $8,000 per acre.
County commissioners on both sides of Spring Creek (Wheeler and Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey), have said publicly that they would not support building a bridge over Spring Creek.
So Ryko is now battling connectivity issues to its north and south. That will limit the appeal of any developments built there. And that’s probably a good thing.
The Case for Caution
As the Federal Government reduces support for flood-mitigation and disaster relief, the financial burden will fall increasingly onto states, counties and cities to do the job by themselves. And the lowest cost way to do that is by preserving land along bayous, creeks and rivers. Prevention is always cheaper than correction.
Taking that center portion of the Townsen Blvd. extension off the Montgomery County road bond won’t prevent Ryko from developing its land. But it could make it more difficult. And, in my opinion, that is a step in the right direction.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/17/2025
2788 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/2025/04/20250416-DSC_2187.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2025-04-17 16:14:372025-04-17 18:12:08MoCo Commissioner Taking Townsen Blvd. Extension Off 2025 Road Bond
4/16/25 – Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler will host a town hall meeting tonight at 6:30 to discuss the 2025 Montgomery County Road Bond including the Townsen Blvd. extension.
One of the proposed projects is the extension of Townsen Boulevard south from the Grand Parkway toward Spring Creek. The Montgomery County long-range transportation plan shows the road eventually crossing Spring Creek and hooking up with Townsen Boulevard in Humble. However, the Townsen proposal on the 2025 MoCo Road Bond would not take it that far at this time.
The portion of Townsen on the 2025 Road Bond is the light blue within the purple area. The purple area is a portion of MoCo Precinct 3.
Location of Town Hall Meeting
The meeting has not been widely publicized. However, Commissioner Wheeler did post this on his Facebook page.
If you have concerns about the Townsen extension, which is part of the Road Bond Election on May 3, tonight may be your best chance to get them answered.
Tables on pages 13 and 14 of the agreement show the $27 million project taking place in four stages. Two of the four tables (Segments 3 and 4) reference placement of fill dirt within jurisdictional floodplains. Segment 4 also references building a bridge crossing to avoid wetlands. Section 2F of the agreement specifies a road completion date of December 31, 2027.
However, before leaving office at the end of 2024, Noack signed an amendment to the agreement extending the completion date to December 31, 2030.
So far, citizens have raised three main concerns about the Townsen Blvd. extension:
Traffic
Crime
Flooding
Traffic
Residents worry about how an increase in “cut-through” traffic would affect their tranquil lifestyles.
Crime
In a related concern, residents worry that if a Townsen Blvd. bridge ever did go across Spring Creek, it could give easier access to those in the City, who may have less than honorable intent. This is a very affluent area. Many families likely moved there to escape crime.
Flooding
The road will open up vast areas in floodplains to development. And those floodplains are expanding based on data acquired after Hurricane Harvey. But FEMA has not yet released updated flood maps. And even if they do, there is no guarantee that Montgomery County will adopt them.
Nor is there any guarantee that Montgomery County will adopt its new drainage criteria manual and floodplain regulations based on the higher standards anytime soon.
This map is from 2014. Townsen (red) will cut through many floodplains which are expanding based on data acquired after Harvey.
Residents downstream in Kingwood also fear what the floodplain development and increase in impervious cover could do. One highly reputable hydrologist told me that, “It would be like aiming a fire hose at Kingwood.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/16/25
2787 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/Townsen-Extention-on-Bond.jpg?fit=1100%2C726&ssl=17261100adminadmin2025-04-16 13:02:362025-04-16 13:06:55MoCo Precinct 3 Town Hall Meeting Tonight Will Discuss Road Bond, Townsen Blvd.
4/15/25 – At a flood resilience workshop yesterday in Houston, the importance of a steady funding source for flood-mitigation projects became abundantly clear.
The Biannual Resiliency Workshop of the Society of American Military Engineers (S.A.M.E.) drew a star-studded lineup of speakers for the hundreds of engineers, lawyers and business people in attendance.
Alia Vinson, a partner at the law firm of Allen Boone Humphries Robinson LLP, made steady funding for flood mitigation the focus of her entire talk. She even wore green to underscore her theme. (“The color of money,” she said.)
Alia Vinson, partner at Allen Boone Humphries Robinson LLP, speaking at S.A.M.E. workshop.
After Vinson, the keynote speaker, Congressman Wesley Hunt, talked about “unsustainable federal spending.” The Federal government provides most of the flood-mitigation financial assistance in the country through FEMA and HUD. But both agencies have come under fire by President Trump and Elon Musk lately. That creates uncertainty for Texas where more people live in floodplains than the entire populations of 30 other states.
Competition for Flood Mitigation Funding Getting Stronger
Vinson’s talk focused primarily on the vigorous competition for funds in this Texas Legislature and the previous session. She began with the creation of the Texas Water Fund (Proposition 6) in 2023, which triggered a $1 billion investment in new water infrastructure needed to support a growing population.
The Texas Water Development Board administers the Texas Water Fund. It has the authority to shift money as needed between at least eight different programs. They award loans and grants to political subdivisions for local water and wastewater infrastructure projects. They include:
New Water Supply Fund
SWIFT
State Revolving Funds
Rural Water Assistance Fund
DFund
State Participation Fund
Water Awareness Fund
Water Assistance Fund
At least 25% of the $1 billion must go to the New Water Supply Fund, which supports projects such as:
Desalination
Aquifer storage and retrieval
Use of produced water
Transport of water
The point:
None of these has to do with flooding or flood mitigation.
This year, “new water” again is high on the Legislature’s agenda. Although nothing is final yet, base budgets have set aside $2.5 billion for the Texas Water Fund.
Pending Legislation Could Help Address Mitigation Needs
The Senate has already approved SB7 and sent it to the House Natural Resources Committee. A key provision makes the Flood Infrastructure Fund eligible for money from the Texas Water Fund.
HB16 does the same thing, but hasn’t made it out of the Natural Resources Committee yet for a vote by the House.
Two other bills pending this year would create a dedicated revenue stream of $1 billion per year for the Texas Water Fund. They are SJR 66 and HJR 7. The big difference between them: the Senate Bill requires at least 80% to be used ONLY for New Water Supply. That would limit flood mitigation funding to only 20% of $1 billion.
Still No Dedicated Funding Stream
I took away two main things from Vinson’s speech:
Texas doesn’t yet have a dedicated funding source for water OR flood mitigation projects.
The money available for flood mitigation is being fragmented among competing needs.
That dedicated funding source could quickly become increasingly important. Uncertainty continues to swirl around financial support from the federal government, which has the deepest pockets when it comes to flood mitigation and disaster relief.
This morning, Politico ran a story with the headline, “FEMA denies Washington state disaster relief from bomb cyclone, governor says.” FEMA denied the State’s request for $34 million for disaster relief even though it reportedly met all the criteria for assistance. According to the State’s governor, FEMA provided no explanation for the denial, but said “assistance was not warranted.”
Federal Support Uncertain
Another speaker yesterday at the S.A.M.E. workshop, U.S. Congressman Wesley Hunt, said he had talked directly with President Trump and Elon Musk at length about the Federal budget.
Congressman Hunt addresses S.A.M.E. workshop about ballooning federal deficitand need to cut spending.
Hunt said the U.S. has a $2 trillion annual deficit and that we are $36 trillion in debt. He characterized both as “unsustainable.”
However, a group called “Truth in Accounting” that monitors government finances reported this morning that the situation is even more dire. The group applies generally accepted accounting principles from the private sector to government spending reports.
Truth in Accounting also says the government needs $158.6 trillion to pay its bills, not $36 trillion. And that each taxpayer’s share of the burden is $974,000.
The ominous warnings from Hunt and Truth in Accounting come as President Trump has questioned whether to disband FEMA entirely and give money directly to states to handle disasters. According to Politico, Trump has created “a council to study what to do with FEMA and whether to get rid of it.”
The uncertainty surrounding future availability of Federal aid makes it all the more important for Texas to provide a dedicated, steady funding stream for flood mitigation.
MoCo Commissioner Taking Townsen Blvd. Extension Off 2025 Road Bond
4/17/2025 – Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler’s office says he is taking the controversial Townsen Blvd. extension off of the County’s 2025 Road Bond. However, as of 4 P.M. this afternoon, the county’s website does not yet reflect the deletion.
The change comes after a Town Hall meeting last night at which the commissioner heard a crowd of angry residents express their concerns about the Townsen Blvd. extension. The extension would open up 5,500 flood-prone acres, where a developer plans to build 7,000 homes.
No one spoke in favor of the road project, which includes three segments.
The cancellation of the County’s portion of the project could make it more difficult for a private developer to build a separate segment beyond that. The developer would have no thoroughfare to connect to.
Contractually, that separate segment must be completed by the end of 2030 if the developer hopes to get reimbursed $27 million from County tax revenues for building the road.
Road Plans Included Three Separate Segments
At the start of the meeting Wheeler explained that the entire road, as originally conceived, stretched from the Grand Parkway to Spring Creek on the south in three discrete segments. A bridge over Spring Creek was to have connected the Montgomery County portion of Townsen to the Harris County portion of Townsen Blvd.
The first segment (shown above in yellow) is currently under construction using private funds.
Going into last night’s meeting, financing of the second segment (dotted green line) was to have come from Montgomery County’s 2025 Road Bond.
The third segment (shown in red) was to have been financed through a “381 Agreement” between Ryko, Montgomery County and several utility districts.
Controversy Surrounding 381 Agreement
Under a Texas 381 Agreement, if a developer builds a road and developments around it, the county reimburses the developer for their expenses. That reimbursement comes out of future tax revenues from the new residents. Such agreements encourage economic development.
According to Wheeler, his predecessor, James Noack, initially signed the 381 agreement with Ryko in 2018. The contract required them to complete the road by the end of 2027. But they still have not started construction, jeopardizing that deadline.
So, before Noack left office at the end of 2024, he signed an agreement to extend the deadline to 2030. That gave the developer three more years.
But Noack pushed the deadline extension through Commissioners Court on a “consent agenda.” Here’s where the plot thickens. Typically, consent agendas are reserved for non-controversial items, such as fixing a pothole.
However, the portion of the road covered by this 381 agreement was and is controversial for several reasons.
Last night, residents expressed concerns about decreases in property values along with increases in crime, traffic, flooding, and taxes. Residents also worried about the impacts on traffic safety and area schools.
Deadline Extension Also Fundamentally Changed Developer’s Obligation
Wheeler also pointed out that the deadline extension fundamentally changed the deal. The original agreement obligated Ryko to build the bridge over Spring Creek. However, the three-year deadline extension obligates them only to build the road – not the bridge. He also said the county has no plans to build that bridge, nor is it in the 2025 Road Bond.
Wheeler explained he had little to no power to stop the road or the agreement. “You cannot deny access to a public right of way to a property owner,” said Wheeler. But residents complained nonetheless.
Wheeler said that he met with Ryko and tried to buy the land from them. But he said they wanted “nine figures.” That would be somewhere north of $100,000,000 for 5,500 acres. And that would make the price per acre a whopping $18,000…for land that is largely in a floodplain and pockmarked with wetlands.
The land sits at the tip of a funnel where the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek and Cypress Creek all come together. FEMA’s flood map below shows just how flood prone the area is.
Montgomery County Appraisal District currently values the land at approximately $4,000 per acre, not $18,000.
Wheeler also said that Harris County Flood Control previously offered to buy 1,800 acres of Ryko’s land – the portions closest to the West Fork and Spring Creek. However, the developer wanted $15 million. Flood Control couldn’t afford it. The land would have cost more than $8,000 per acre.
County commissioners on both sides of Spring Creek (Wheeler and Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey), have said publicly that they would not support building a bridge over Spring Creek.
So Ryko is now battling connectivity issues to its north and south. That will limit the appeal of any developments built there. And that’s probably a good thing.
The Case for Caution
As the Federal Government reduces support for flood-mitigation and disaster relief, the financial burden will fall increasingly onto states, counties and cities to do the job by themselves. And the lowest cost way to do that is by preserving land along bayous, creeks and rivers. Prevention is always cheaper than correction.
Taking that center portion of the Townsen Blvd. extension off the Montgomery County road bond won’t prevent Ryko from developing its land. But it could make it more difficult. And, in my opinion, that is a step in the right direction.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/17/2025
2788 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.
MoCo Precinct 3 Town Hall Meeting Tonight Will Discuss Road Bond, Townsen Blvd.
4/16/25 – Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler will host a town hall meeting tonight at 6:30 to discuss the 2025 Montgomery County Road Bond including the Townsen Blvd. extension.
One of the proposed projects is the extension of Townsen Boulevard south from the Grand Parkway toward Spring Creek. The Montgomery County long-range transportation plan shows the road eventually crossing Spring Creek and hooking up with Townsen Boulevard in Humble. However, the Townsen proposal on the 2025 MoCo Road Bond would not take it that far at this time.
Location of Town Hall Meeting
The meeting has not been widely publicized. However, Commissioner Wheeler did post this on his Facebook page.
If you have concerns about the Townsen extension, which is part of the Road Bond Election on May 3, tonight may be your best chance to get them answered.
Last month, Montgomery County Precinct 3 listed Townsen as its #1 project.
Normally, developers pay for roads like this. But in this case, taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill. That has many people concerned.
So does the long-range plan that shows the road connecting across Spring Creek to Humble.
But back in 2018, the previous Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner James Noack signed an agreement with Montgomery County Municipal Utility District No. 118 to fund the road improvement costs and reimburse the developer for its road improvement expenditures.
Tables on pages 13 and 14 of the agreement show the $27 million project taking place in four stages. Two of the four tables (Segments 3 and 4) reference placement of fill dirt within jurisdictional floodplains. Segment 4 also references building a bridge crossing to avoid wetlands. Section 2F of the agreement specifies a road completion date of December 31, 2027.
However, before leaving office at the end of 2024, Noack signed an amendment to the agreement extending the completion date to December 31, 2030.
Here are construction plans for the segment currently under construction.
Concerns about Townsen Extension
So far, citizens have raised three main concerns about the Townsen Blvd. extension:
Traffic
Residents worry about how an increase in “cut-through” traffic would affect their tranquil lifestyles.
Crime
In a related concern, residents worry that if a Townsen Blvd. bridge ever did go across Spring Creek, it could give easier access to those in the City, who may have less than honorable intent. This is a very affluent area. Many families likely moved there to escape crime.
Flooding
The road will open up vast areas in floodplains to development. And those floodplains are expanding based on data acquired after Hurricane Harvey. But FEMA has not yet released updated flood maps. And even if they do, there is no guarantee that Montgomery County will adopt them.
Nor is there any guarantee that Montgomery County will adopt its new drainage criteria manual and floodplain regulations based on the higher standards anytime soon.
So, flooding could easily damage many of the newer homes and affect the value of existing surrounding homes.
Residents downstream in Kingwood also fear what the floodplain development and increase in impervious cover could do. One highly reputable hydrologist told me that, “It would be like aiming a fire hose at Kingwood.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/16/25
2787 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.
Why Flood Mitigation Needs Steady Funding Source
4/15/25 – At a flood resilience workshop yesterday in Houston, the importance of a steady funding source for flood-mitigation projects became abundantly clear.
The Biannual Resiliency Workshop of the Society of American Military Engineers (S.A.M.E.) drew a star-studded lineup of speakers for the hundreds of engineers, lawyers and business people in attendance.
Alia Vinson, a partner at the law firm of Allen Boone Humphries Robinson LLP, made steady funding for flood mitigation the focus of her entire talk. She even wore green to underscore her theme. (“The color of money,” she said.)
After Vinson, the keynote speaker, Congressman Wesley Hunt, talked about “unsustainable federal spending.” The Federal government provides most of the flood-mitigation financial assistance in the country through FEMA and HUD. But both agencies have come under fire by President Trump and Elon Musk lately. That creates uncertainty for Texas where more people live in floodplains than the entire populations of 30 other states.
Competition for Flood Mitigation Funding Getting Stronger
Vinson’s talk focused primarily on the vigorous competition for funds in this Texas Legislature and the previous session. She began with the creation of the Texas Water Fund (Proposition 6) in 2023, which triggered a $1 billion investment in new water infrastructure needed to support a growing population.
The Texas Water Development Board administers the Texas Water Fund. It has the authority to shift money as needed between at least eight different programs. They award loans and grants to political subdivisions for local water and wastewater infrastructure projects. They include:
At least 25% of the $1 billion must go to the New Water Supply Fund, which supports projects such as:
The point:
This year, “new water” again is high on the Legislature’s agenda. Although nothing is final yet, base budgets have set aside $2.5 billion for the Texas Water Fund.
Pending Legislation Could Help Address Mitigation Needs
Vinson then shifted focus to this year’s SB7 by Senator Charles Perry and HB16 by Rep. Cody Harris.
The Senate has already approved SB7 and sent it to the House Natural Resources Committee. A key provision makes the Flood Infrastructure Fund eligible for money from the Texas Water Fund.
HB16 does the same thing, but hasn’t made it out of the Natural Resources Committee yet for a vote by the House.
Two other bills pending this year would create a dedicated revenue stream of $1 billion per year for the Texas Water Fund. They are SJR 66 and HJR 7. The big difference between them: the Senate Bill requires at least 80% to be used ONLY for New Water Supply. That would limit flood mitigation funding to only 20% of $1 billion.
Still No Dedicated Funding Stream
I took away two main things from Vinson’s speech:
That dedicated funding source could quickly become increasingly important. Uncertainty continues to swirl around financial support from the federal government, which has the deepest pockets when it comes to flood mitigation and disaster relief.
This morning, Politico ran a story with the headline, “FEMA denies Washington state disaster relief from bomb cyclone, governor says.” FEMA denied the State’s request for $34 million for disaster relief even though it reportedly met all the criteria for assistance. According to the State’s governor, FEMA provided no explanation for the denial, but said “assistance was not warranted.”
Federal Support Uncertain
Another speaker yesterday at the S.A.M.E. workshop, U.S. Congressman Wesley Hunt, said he had talked directly with President Trump and Elon Musk at length about the Federal budget.
Hunt said the U.S. has a $2 trillion annual deficit and that we are $36 trillion in debt. He characterized both as “unsustainable.”
However, a group called “Truth in Accounting” that monitors government finances reported this morning that the situation is even more dire. The group applies generally accepted accounting principles from the private sector to government spending reports.
According to Truth in Accounting, the government’s financial position worsened by $4.7 trillion last year, not $2 trillion.
Truth in Accounting also says the government needs $158.6 trillion to pay its bills, not $36 trillion. And that each taxpayer’s share of the burden is $974,000.
The ominous warnings from Hunt and Truth in Accounting come as President Trump has questioned whether to disband FEMA entirely and give money directly to states to handle disasters. According to Politico, Trump has created “a council to study what to do with FEMA and whether to get rid of it.”
The uncertainty surrounding future availability of Federal aid makes it all the more important for Texas to provide a dedicated, steady funding stream for flood mitigation.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/15/2025
2786 Days since Hurricane Harvey