6/8/2026 – In their 6/11/2026 meeting, Harris County Commissioners will revisit the future employment of Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen, PhD, PE. The immediate issue: slippage of 11 CDBG-DR projects that could cost the county $322 million if they miss their deadlines on February 28, 2027.
Roughly 84% of the time for those has elapsed with less than 4% of their budgets expended.
Despite deadlines only a little more than eight months away, the projects typically take 1-2 years to construct.
HCFCD also expects to miss deadlines on 13 of 18 CDBG Mitigation Projects (CDBG-MIT) worth another $362.7 million dollars. But that deadline is 3/31/28.
Predictably, the parties involved are offering their own versions of how we reached this point. Dueling press releases today differed starkly.
The GLO says HCFCD promised it “shovel-ready” projects.
On the other hand, HCFCD calls them “complex, large-scale flood risk reduction projects under strict federal timelines, evolving program requirements, construction market pressures, and funding structures that were not originally designed for this level of accelerated delivery.”
Unusual 5-Part GLO Press Release
The GLO issued a five-part press release, unusual in its detail. There was:
The press release itself
An open letter to Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo
Photographs of 11 projects supposedly under construction, only three of which were actually moving dirt.
Timeline of critical events during the life of the CDBG-DR Program (the one with the most pressing deadline).
A list of “Failures” by HCFCD.
The GLO press release summarized the letter to Hidalgo. It quoted GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham as saying Harris County needed “Shovels, Not Scapegoats.”
The press release also said that, “We have grave concerns about Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) not meeting its benchmarks…” It went on to say that if the county didn’t change its business processes…
“…there is likely zero chance of successfully meeting the grant timeline established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.”
Dawn Buckingham, GLO Commissioner
Buckingham stated that the GLO spent more than $5 million of its own grant funding to teach HCFCD about grant requirements and provide technical support with grant applications. The GLO claims its team conducted more than 750 meetings “to provide staff support to Harris County to ensure these projects are completed on time in accordance with the federal deadline, yet there are still too few shovels in the ground.”
Commissioner Buckingham concludes her letter by saying, “It’s time to … finish the job. Shovels, not scapegoats.”
Page 15 of 18 shows that with roughly 84% of time elapsed, HCFCD has spent only about 3.9% of available DR funds.
Page 11 of 18 shows that HCFCD has spent only 4.4% of available MIT funds.
HCFCD Paints Rosy Picture Despite Obstacles
The GLO press release this morning emphasized that in 2023 projects were supposed to have been shovel ready. HCFCD’s press release this afternoon never mentions “shovel ready.” Instead it paints a nightmare picture of impossible complexity before claiming it has, ta da, a “plan” to solve the problem.
HCFCD will unveil its new “plan” to commissioners on Thursday. According to HCFCD, it “protects federal funding, maintains and strengthens our commitment to communities, and ensures residents receive the flood risk reduction benefits these programs were designed to deliver.”
HCFCD had planned a press conference tomorrow to explain the plan to reporters, but cancelled it late today.
Proposed Solution
While details of the plan have not yet been divulged, in principle, GLO and HCFCD agree on the following outline. It involves:
2) Billing everything possible from that giant bucket against the DR budget before the 2/28/27 deadline.
3) Billing the rest against the MIT budget, which has a 3/31/28 deadline.
This approach at least kicks the can down the road past the next election. However, Buckingham cautions that the 2/28/27 deadline is firm. Without taking a position on Petersen’s employment, GLO does warn that HCFCD and the County need to move much faster.
Thursday’s Decision on Petersen
GLO’s list of Harris County “failures” is unambiguous. Ramsey can elaborate on them at length and provide examples. Despite extensive support provided by GLO, they include:
Missed deadlines
Reprioritizing projects repeatedly
Submitting incomplete or inaccurate documentation that failed to adhere to federal grant regulations
Failing to respond to GLO requests regarding federal grant processes
Significant employee turnover and loss of experienced staff capacity
Failure to achieve timely engineering design, environmental clearance, procurement, vendor contracting and construction starts…
HCFCD’s own spending data shows that its slowdown cuts across project phases, types of projects, and funding sources. The graph below shows all 2018 bond spending. You can see that problems go far beyond CDBG, GLO and HUD.
The downturn you see coincides with Petersen’s appointment to manage HCFCD.
HCFCD spending over time. Petersen took over in 2022after Democrats started pushing out the previous management team in 2021.
Changing Horses in Midstream
Petersen supporters argue that it could be dangerous to change horses in midstream, especially now that the immediate crisis seems to be solved with the “one big bucket” plan.
But her opponents argue that staying with the status quo carries the larger risk. They argue that poor performance during a crisis may be a reason for change, not a reason against it.
In my opinion, the real question is not whether you’re midstream, but whether the current horse is still the best one to get you across.
Buckingham answered, “This patient is in the middle of a code and about to die.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/8/2026and updated with Fox link on 6/9/26
3205 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/2026/04/2018-Bond-Spending-by-WS-Incremental.png?fit=2060%2C778&ssl=17782060adminadmin2026-06-08 23:18:502026-06-09 22:30:07Showdown Over Slowdown at HCFCD
6/7/2026 – Much of human history comes down to balancing the rights of individuals vs. those of society as a whole. Said another way, where do we draw the line when considering “Me vs. We?”
The proposed Scarborough Development, backed by the State of Texas General Land Office, in the floodplains of Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, Turkey Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork makes a good example.
Flood-proneScarborough property lies inside the V at the confluence of Spring Creek (l) and San Jacinto West Fork (r).
Should a developer have the ability to build on its own property? Even if altering the floodplain will endanger the lives of future homeowners, first responders, and people in surrounding areas? And what if you, the taxpayer, are asked to mitigate that risk in the future? That’s the Me vs. We debate. What’s good for one isn’t always good for the majority.
Me vs. We in American Life
The Me vs. We debate permeates almost every aspect of American life. For instance, we give up some of our freedom as individuals when we:
Marry and raise a family
Obey laws
Choose to live in a city
Join the Armed Forces
Take a job with a company
Go through airport security
Stop at a red light.
In America, the “Me vs. We debate” divides conservatives from liberals and Red states from Blue on most contentious issues
After 250 years, we still haven’t figured out where to draw that line – at least not universally. We just let people and companies shop for jurisdictions compatible with their own self-interest. Want conservative? Move to Texas. Want to hedge your bets? Move to Harris County.
Different Jurisdictions, Different Philosophies
Want to file a lawsuit against the EPA or against polluters? Shop for a court friendly to your point of view.
Should a company be allowed to build on cheap, floodplain property likely to destroy homes and lives? That is the debate with Scarborough. The company stands to make immense profits if it can secure development permits for its 5,300-acre property.
Against that backdrop, lies the safety and security of hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom remain blissfully ignorant of the developing threat upstream.
Engineers using mathematical models estimate the probability of becoming a victim due to alterations they propose to the floodplain. But, in the end, they are highly paid consultants trying to prove the viability of their recommendations to clients.
The public rarely has the knowledge or money to challenge their findings. The public must rely on elected representatives to protect them, the same representatives who receive immense campaign contributions from the engineering companies and their clients.
The High Cost of Failure
If the engineers get it wrong, which they often do, you, the taxpayer, not the developer, will pick up the tab.
If engineers always got it right, American government(s) wouldn’t spend $40–70 billion per year on disaster relief and flood mitigation.
The proposed Scarborough development is almost half as large as Kingwood. And almost all of it is in floodplains or floodways.
FEMA’s estimated feet above dry land for 100- and 500-year floods in the Scarborough area shown above.
Houston and Harris County have already passed unanimous resolutions against developing the Scarborough land. But it’s in Montgomery County, which has less stringent flood regulations.
Ask everyone you know to sign it, too. Help protect your home and family.
This is an election year. Let’s make elections painful for the people pushing this development. The best time to stop a problem is before it starts.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/7/2026
3204 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/2026/05/DJI_20260524145751_0210_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2026-06-07 18:12:572026-06-07 18:12:58Editorial: “Me vs. We” in Scarborough Development Debate
Almost 7,500 people so far have signed the petition against developing the 5,300-acre Scarborough property near the confluence of Spring, Cypress and Turkey Creeks with the San Jacinto West Fork just west of Kingwood. Hydrologists have said that developing this land would be like “aiming a fire hose at the Humble/Kingwood Area.”
Scarborough property outlined in red. Previously owned by Ryko.
I asked ChatGPT why and this is the response.
There are several arguments against development. Some are engineering-based, some environmental, and some policy-related.
1. It is one of the most flood-prone locations in the Houston region
The site sits at the convergence of multiple major watersheds. During large storms, floodwaters from Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, and the West Fork all interact in the same area. Opponents argue that this makes the property function as a natural flood-storage area. (Reduce Flooding)
Floodplain mapping cited in public discussions of the project shows that most of the tract lies within FEMA-mapped floodplains, floodways, wetlands, or combinations of all three. Only a relatively small portion is outside the mapped 500-year floodplain. (Reduce Flooding)
2. Development could reduce natural flood storage
Large floodplains temporarily store water during floods. Even when regulations require detention ponds, detention does not always replicate the function of a broad natural floodplain at the confluence of major rivers.
Critics contend that filling, elevating, road-building, and other development activities could displace floodwater and alter flow patterns, potentially increasing flood elevations elsewhere. This concern was cited by local officials who opposed the project. (Houston Chronicle)
3. The location is vulnerable to backwater effects
The confluence area experiences complex hydraulics. When the West Fork is high, water can back up into Spring Creek. Likewise, heavy flows on Spring Creek can impede drainage from nearby areas.
Because the site is so flat and near multiple converging waterways, small changes in elevation or conveyance can have outsized effects on flood behavior. This is a classic problem in low-gradient coastal plain rivers such as those around Houston.
4. Downstream communities already have a history of catastrophic flooding
Areas downstream and adjacent to the tract—including Kingwood, Humble, Atascocita, and portions of northeast Harris County—experienced severe flooding during:
The Tax Day Flood (2016)
Hurricane Harvey (2017)
Multiple major floods in 2024
Opponents argue that introducing thousands of homes into a natural flood-storage area creates additional risk for communities that have already suffered repeated flood losses. (Houston Chronicle)
5. Future flood maps may show even greater risk
Many current FEMA maps are based on pre-Atlas 14 rainfall assumptions. Atlas 14 substantially increased design rainfall amounts for the Houston region.
A tract that appears marginally developable under older flood maps may be substantially less developable under newer hydrologic assumptions. This has been a recurring concern raised by local flood experts and residents. (Reduce Flooding)
6. Environmental impacts could be substantial
The property contains:
Extensive wetlands
Bottomland hardwood forests
Riparian habitat
Wildlife corridors associated with Spring Creek and the San Jacinto system
The Spring Creek watershed is regarded as one of the more environmentally sensitive watersheds in the region because much of it remains relatively undeveloped. (HCFCD)
Development could fragment habitat, reduce wetland functions, and diminish water-quality benefits currently provided by the undeveloped floodplain.
7. Public infrastructure costs may exceed benefits
Because of the flood risk, development would likely require:
Elevated roads
Bridges
Extensive drainage infrastructure
Utility extensions
Ongoing maintenance
Critics argue that taxpayers could eventually bear part of the cost of protecting and repairing infrastructure built in a location that naturally floods.
8. Alternative uses may provide greater public value
Many local officials have advocated preserving the tract as:
Flood-mitigation land
Regional green space
Conservation land
Floodwater storage
In 2025 and 2026, both the City of Houston and Harris County adopted resolutions opposing development of the tract, and several local officials publicly advocated maintaining the property for flood-control purposes rather than residential development. (Houston Chronicle)
The strongest technical argument
The strongest engineering argument is not simply that the land floods, but that it floods because it is located at the hydraulic junction of three major watersheds. Land at such confluences often performs a regional flood-storage function that is difficult and expensive to replace artificially. Once developed, that storage function is largely lost forever. (Reduce Flooding)
The counterargument from developers is that modern engineering, detention, elevated construction, and mitigation measures can allow safe development. The central dispute is whether engineered mitigation can truly replace the flood-storage and conveyance functions currently provided by thousands of acres of undeveloped floodplain at this particular location.
Sign Petition to Help Protect This Land
This land could not be developed economically without governmental help. But development would likely increase flooding, requiring costly governmental mitigation and disaster relief efforts in the future – typically up to 8X more than the cost of preservation.
State Rep Steve Toth says the Texas General Land Office’s School Land Board has promised the developer it would invest $140 million in the property. Ironically, the GLO also manages $14 billion worth of flood mitigation dollars – a clear conflict of interest.
The GLO, SLB, and Ken Paxton’s Attorney General’s Office have all denied FOIA requests attempting to discover more about their relationship with the developer.
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/2025/05/Ryko-Floodplains-Streams.jpg?fit=1100%2C723&ssl=17231100adminadmin2026-06-06 16:25:432026-06-06 16:25:43What ChatGPT Says about Developing Scarborough Floodplain Property
Showdown Over Slowdown at HCFCD
6/8/2026 – In their 6/11/2026 meeting, Harris County Commissioners will revisit the future employment of Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen, PhD, PE. The immediate issue: slippage of 11 CDBG-DR projects that could cost the county $322 million if they miss their deadlines on February 28, 2027.
Despite deadlines only a little more than eight months away, the projects typically take 1-2 years to construct.
HCFCD also expects to miss deadlines on 13 of 18 CDBG Mitigation Projects (CDBG-MIT) worth another $362.7 million dollars. But that deadline is 3/31/28.
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE has sounded the alarm for months about this problem. So, has the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which administers HUD funds in Texas.
Predictably, the parties involved are offering their own versions of how we reached this point. Dueling press releases today differed starkly.
The GLO says HCFCD promised it “shovel-ready” projects.
On the other hand, HCFCD calls them “complex, large-scale flood risk reduction projects under strict federal timelines, evolving program requirements, construction market pressures, and funding structures that were not originally designed for this level of accelerated delivery.”
Unusual 5-Part GLO Press Release
The GLO issued a five-part press release, unusual in its detail. There was:
The GLO press release summarized the letter to Hidalgo. It quoted GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham as saying Harris County needed “Shovels, Not Scapegoats.”
The press release also said that, “We have grave concerns about Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) not meeting its benchmarks…” It went on to say that if the county didn’t change its business processes…
Buckingham stated that the GLO spent more than $5 million of its own grant funding to teach HCFCD about grant requirements and provide technical support with grant applications. The GLO claims its team conducted more than 750 meetings “to provide staff support to Harris County to ensure these projects are completed on time in accordance with the federal deadline, yet there are still too few shovels in the ground.”
Commissioner Buckingham concludes her letter by saying, “It’s time to … finish the job. Shovels, not scapegoats.”
Click here for the:
Later in the day, GLO also provided an update on reimbursable expenditures to date associated with CDBG-DR and MIT projects.
Page 15 of 18 shows that with roughly 84% of time elapsed, HCFCD has spent only about 3.9% of available DR funds.
Page 11 of 18 shows that HCFCD has spent only 4.4% of available MIT funds.
HCFCD Paints Rosy Picture Despite Obstacles
The GLO press release this morning emphasized that in 2023 projects were supposed to have been shovel ready. HCFCD’s press release this afternoon never mentions “shovel ready.” Instead it paints a nightmare picture of impossible complexity before claiming it has, ta da, a “plan” to solve the problem.
HCFCD will unveil its new “plan” to commissioners on Thursday. According to HCFCD, it “protects federal funding, maintains and strengthens our commitment to communities, and ensures residents receive the flood risk reduction benefits these programs were designed to deliver.”
HCFCD had planned a press conference tomorrow to explain the plan to reporters, but cancelled it late today.
Proposed Solution
While details of the plan have not yet been divulged, in principle, GLO and HCFCD agree on the following outline. It involves:
1) Putting all CDBG-DR and -MIT projects in one giant “budget bucket,” including some funds still at Harris County Housing and Community Development.
2) Billing everything possible from that giant bucket against the DR budget before the 2/28/27 deadline.
3) Billing the rest against the MIT budget, which has a 3/31/28 deadline.
This approach at least kicks the can down the road past the next election. However, Buckingham cautions that the 2/28/27 deadline is firm. Without taking a position on Petersen’s employment, GLO does warn that HCFCD and the County need to move much faster.
Thursday’s Decision on Petersen
GLO’s list of Harris County “failures” is unambiguous. Ramsey can elaborate on them at length and provide examples. Despite extensive support provided by GLO, they include:
HCFCD’s own spending data shows that its slowdown cuts across project phases, types of projects, and funding sources. The graph below shows all 2018 bond spending. You can see that problems go far beyond CDBG, GLO and HUD.
The downturn you see coincides with Petersen’s appointment to manage HCFCD.
Changing Horses in Midstream
Petersen supporters argue that it could be dangerous to change horses in midstream, especially now that the immediate crisis seems to be solved with the “one big bucket” plan.
But her opponents argue that staying with the status quo carries the larger risk. They argue that poor performance during a crisis may be a reason for change, not a reason against it.
In my opinion, the real question is not whether you’re midstream, but whether the current horse is still the best one to get you across.
Fox26’s Greg Groogan interviewed GLO commissioner Dr. Dawn Buckingham. After recounting a litany of concerns about HCFCD’s performance under Petersen, he asked, “Commissioner, you are … a Doctor. This patient looks sick. Is that a fair assessment?”
Buckingham answered, “This patient is in the middle of a code and about to die.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/8/2026 and updated with Fox link on 6/9/26
3205 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: “Me vs. We” in Scarborough Development Debate
6/7/2026 – Much of human history comes down to balancing the rights of individuals vs. those of society as a whole. Said another way, where do we draw the line when considering “Me vs. We?”
The proposed Scarborough Development, backed by the State of Texas General Land Office, in the floodplains of Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, Turkey Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork makes a good example.
Should a developer have the ability to build on its own property? Even if altering the floodplain will endanger the lives of future homeowners, first responders, and people in surrounding areas? And what if you, the taxpayer, are asked to mitigate that risk in the future? That’s the Me vs. We debate. What’s good for one isn’t always good for the majority.
Me vs. We in American Life
The Me vs. We debate permeates almost every aspect of American life. For instance, we give up some of our freedom as individuals when we:
In America, the “Me vs. We debate” divides conservatives from liberals and Red states from Blue on most contentious issues
After 250 years, we still haven’t figured out where to draw that line – at least not universally. We just let people and companies shop for jurisdictions compatible with their own self-interest. Want conservative? Move to Texas. Want to hedge your bets? Move to Harris County.
Different Jurisdictions, Different Philosophies
Want to file a lawsuit against the EPA or against polluters? Shop for a court friendly to your point of view.
Should a company be allowed to build on cheap, floodplain property likely to destroy homes and lives? That is the debate with Scarborough. The company stands to make immense profits if it can secure development permits for its 5,300-acre property.
Against that backdrop, lies the safety and security of hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom remain blissfully ignorant of the developing threat upstream.
Engineers using mathematical models estimate the probability of becoming a victim due to alterations they propose to the floodplain. But, in the end, they are highly paid consultants trying to prove the viability of their recommendations to clients.
The public rarely has the knowledge or money to challenge their findings. The public must rely on elected representatives to protect them, the same representatives who receive immense campaign contributions from the engineering companies and their clients.
The High Cost of Failure
If the engineers get it wrong, which they often do, you, the taxpayer, not the developer, will pick up the tab.
If engineers always got it right, American government(s) wouldn’t spend $40–70 billion per year on disaster relief and flood mitigation.
And the shame of it is that floodplain preservation is almost always cheaper than flood mitigation and disaster recovery…by a huge margin.
The proposed Scarborough development is almost half as large as Kingwood. And almost all of it is in floodplains or floodways.
Houston and Harris County have already passed unanimous resolutions against developing the Scarborough land. But it’s in Montgomery County, which has less stringent flood regulations.
Regardless, concerned Montgomery County residents have started a petition against the development.
Ask everyone you know to sign it, too. Help protect your home and family.
This is an election year. Let’s make elections painful for the people pushing this development. The best time to stop a problem is before it starts.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/7/2026
3204 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 ChatGPT Says about Developing Scarborough Floodplain Property
Almost 7,500 people so far have signed the petition against developing the 5,300-acre Scarborough property near the confluence of Spring, Cypress and Turkey Creeks with the San Jacinto West Fork just west of Kingwood. Hydrologists have said that developing this land would be like “aiming a fire hose at the Humble/Kingwood Area.”
I asked ChatGPT why and this is the response.
There are several arguments against development. Some are engineering-based, some environmental, and some policy-related.
1. It is one of the most flood-prone locations in the Houston region
The site sits at the convergence of multiple major watersheds. During large storms, floodwaters from Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, and the West Fork all interact in the same area. Opponents argue that this makes the property function as a natural flood-storage area. (Reduce Flooding)
Floodplain mapping cited in public discussions of the project shows that most of the tract lies within FEMA-mapped floodplains, floodways, wetlands, or combinations of all three. Only a relatively small portion is outside the mapped 500-year floodplain. (Reduce Flooding)
2. Development could reduce natural flood storage
Large floodplains temporarily store water during floods. Even when regulations require detention ponds, detention does not always replicate the function of a broad natural floodplain at the confluence of major rivers.
Critics contend that filling, elevating, road-building, and other development activities could displace floodwater and alter flow patterns, potentially increasing flood elevations elsewhere. This concern was cited by local officials who opposed the project. (Houston Chronicle)
3. The location is vulnerable to backwater effects
The confluence area experiences complex hydraulics. When the West Fork is high, water can back up into Spring Creek. Likewise, heavy flows on Spring Creek can impede drainage from nearby areas.
Because the site is so flat and near multiple converging waterways, small changes in elevation or conveyance can have outsized effects on flood behavior. This is a classic problem in low-gradient coastal plain rivers such as those around Houston.
4. Downstream communities already have a history of catastrophic flooding
Areas downstream and adjacent to the tract—including Kingwood, Humble, Atascocita, and portions of northeast Harris County—experienced severe flooding during:
Opponents argue that introducing thousands of homes into a natural flood-storage area creates additional risk for communities that have already suffered repeated flood losses. (Houston Chronicle)
5. Future flood maps may show even greater risk
Many current FEMA maps are based on pre-Atlas 14 rainfall assumptions. Atlas 14 substantially increased design rainfall amounts for the Houston region.
A tract that appears marginally developable under older flood maps may be substantially less developable under newer hydrologic assumptions. This has been a recurring concern raised by local flood experts and residents. (Reduce Flooding)
6. Environmental impacts could be substantial
The property contains:
The Spring Creek watershed is regarded as one of the more environmentally sensitive watersheds in the region because much of it remains relatively undeveloped. (HCFCD)
Development could fragment habitat, reduce wetland functions, and diminish water-quality benefits currently provided by the undeveloped floodplain.
7. Public infrastructure costs may exceed benefits
Because of the flood risk, development would likely require:
Critics argue that taxpayers could eventually bear part of the cost of protecting and repairing infrastructure built in a location that naturally floods.
8. Alternative uses may provide greater public value
Many local officials have advocated preserving the tract as:
In 2025 and 2026, both the City of Houston and Harris County adopted resolutions opposing development of the tract, and several local officials publicly advocated maintaining the property for flood-control purposes rather than residential development. (Houston Chronicle)
The strongest technical argument
The strongest engineering argument is not simply that the land floods, but that it floods because it is located at the hydraulic junction of three major watersheds. Land at such confluences often performs a regional flood-storage function that is difficult and expensive to replace artificially. Once developed, that storage function is largely lost forever. (Reduce Flooding)
The counterargument from developers is that modern engineering, detention, elevated construction, and mitigation measures can allow safe development. The central dispute is whether engineered mitigation can truly replace the flood-storage and conveyance functions currently provided by thousands of acres of undeveloped floodplain at this particular location.
Sign Petition to Help Protect This Land
This land could not be developed economically without governmental help. But development would likely increase flooding, requiring costly governmental mitigation and disaster relief efforts in the future – typically up to 8X more than the cost of preservation.
State Rep Steve Toth says the Texas General Land Office’s School Land Board has promised the developer it would invest $140 million in the property. Ironically, the GLO also manages $14 billion worth of flood mitigation dollars – a clear conflict of interest.
The GLO, SLB, and Ken Paxton’s Attorney General’s Office have all denied FOIA requests attempting to discover more about their relationship with the developer.
If you think this is a bad investment of your tax dollars, please help; sign the petition against developing this land.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/6/2026
3203 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.