5/6/25 – ReduceFlooding has obtained an uncharacteristically blunt letter via a Freedom of Information Act request to Montgomery County’s Engineering Department. The letter blasts Ryko’s Drainage Study for its proposed 5,500-acre development deep in the floodplains near the confluence of four major streams across US59 from Kingwood.
Base map from Ryko Drainage Study. Emphasis added to property boundary (red) and stream names for readability. Shades of blue show floodways and floodplains.
Overview of Drainage Study Objections
The letter, which brims with frustration, strongly objects to Ryko’s Preliminary Drainage Impact Study based on safety concerns. It then lectures Ryko’s engineers about their responsibility to protect the public and goes on to address seven specific concerns.
The author of the letter has since left the Montgomery County Engineering Department after James Noack, who was Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner at the time, reportedly objected to the letter’s objections.
Letter Later Rescinded
A month later, Montgomery County’s Director of Engineering Services sent a second letter to Ryko’s engineers. The terse, three-sentence letter rescinded the first letter and said that the head county engineer would re-review the drainage study.
Montgomery County did not supply any additional details regarding the re-review. Nor did it supply the drainage study submitted by Ryko (although I separately received a copy from Harris County).
Noack was voted out of office last year and replaced by a new Precinct 3 Commissioner, Ritch Wheeler. In a town hall meeting last month, Wheeler said he tried to buy the land from Ryko, but the company wanted an outrageous sum of money for it – more than four times the appraised value. Harris County also reportedly tried to buy the land, but could not afford Ryko’s price either.
Litany of Safety Objections
The first letter to Ryko’s engineers is a classic for its lack of ambiguity. It states that the deceased County Engineer, Dan Wilds, “provided a considerable amount of objection to this development over the years.”
“The most obvious objection,” it continues, “being that that this proposed development is located at the confluence of four major streams: Turkey Creek and Cypress Creek, Cypress Creek and Spring Creek, and finally Spring Creek and the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.”
“Given both the history of this development and a sincere concern for the safety of the public, I can in no way approve this preliminary drainage study nor should anyone as the risk is too high.”
Red and underlined emphasis was in original letter.
The letter then reminds the two engineers for Ryko of their responsibilities under Section 137.55 of the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (TBPELS). The regulations outline the duty of engineers to protect the public by ensuring their work does not endanger health, safety, property, or welfare. This includes preventing unsafe practices.
The letter concludes with a litany of concerns about the drainage impact study and the proposed development. The last concern states, “The County Engineer’s office believes that any development in the subject area, at the confluence of Spring Creek and the San Jacinto River, will be at a higher risk of flooding during extreme events and thus should be avoided.”
To See the Original Letters
For a printable PDF of the first letter, click here. For the second letter rescinding the first letter, click here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/6/25
2807 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.
If any responsible parties have opposing or additional points of view on this subject, I will be happy to publish them.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Ryko-Floodplains-Streams.jpg?fit=1100%2C723&ssl=17231100adminadmin2025-05-06 16:57:292025-05-06 21:05:20Montgomery County Engineering Letter Blasts Ryko’s Drainage Study
5/5/25 – A proposed Federal rule change by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concerning threatened and endangered species could make floodplain development easier.
Changing Definition of ‘Take’
The rule change would limit the Endangered Species Act’s power to protect habitat by deleting the word ‘harm’ from the explanation of what it means to ‘take’ a member of an endangered species.
The definition (page 3, paragraph 12) says, “The term ‘take’ means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
‘Harm’ is the only word in that definition applying to habitat. As NPR reported, “For decades, federal agencies have interpreted ‘harm’ broadly, to include actions that modify or degrade habitats in ways that impair endangered species’ ability to feed, breed or find shelter.”
And in the north Houston area, floodplains provide prime habitat.
Bald Eagle over the West Fork San Jacinto in Kingwood.
Many environmentalists point to habitat loss as the major cause of species loss. They also point to habitat protection as the reason for animals, such as bald eagles, being removed recently from the Endangered Species List.
But if the proposed rule change is adopted, only actions that directly hurt or kill actual animals, not the habitats they rely on, would remain covered by the act.
And that could make floodplain development easier because many threatened and endangered species live near water, imposing additional burdens on developers.
Why the Proposed Change?
The Federal Register says, “The existing regulatory definition of ‘harm,’ which includes habitat modification, runs contrary to the best meaning of the statutory term ‘take.’”
But the definition of ‘take’ has included ‘harm’ for 50+ years. So, clearly this rule change is politically motivated. And in fact, this is the USFWS’s response to Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025.
The introduction to the executive order states that the “ever-expanding morass of complicated Federal regulation imposes massive costs on the lives of millions of Americans, creates a substantial restraint on our economic growth and ability to build and innovate, and hampers our global competitiveness.”
Any Change Would Not Be Immediate
Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s office provided this map showing the nine steps necessary in adopting such a rule change.
People born before the Endangered Species Act became law in 1973 may remember the precipitous loss of bald eagle habitat. They may also remember how protection of that habitat helped bring the species back. At one point, there were fewer than 500 nesting pairs in the entire lower 48 states – an estimated 99.5% population collapse.
It’s unclear how the change of this definition in the Endangered Species Act will affect eagles. Eagles are no longer on the endangered species list. But they are protected under other laws, such as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, also administered by USFWS.
Impact in the San Jacinto Watershed, Floodplains
The Endangered Species Act has hugely affected the oil and gas industry, mining, and land development – all staples of the local economy. So, locally, opinions on this proposed rule change may be sharply divided.
But we also should recognize that many people choose to live in the north Houston area because of the proximity to nature and the abundant wildlife found here. Some of it has survived for the last 50 years because of the Endangered Species Act.
If you would like to add your voice to this debate, here are instructions for submitting a public comment. The page also includes a lengthy discussion of pros and cons from different points of view.
The Federal Register indicates that the public comment period on the proposed rule change will remain open through May 19, 2025. So far, people have submitted more than 26,000 comments.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/5/25
2806 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/2020/02/EagleInFlight.jpg?fit=1200%2C818&ssl=18181200adminadmin2025-05-05 19:43:592025-05-05 19:49:55Proposed Federal Rule Change to Endangered Species Act Could Make Floodplain Development Easier
5/4/25 – A bill by State Rep. Charles Cunningham (HB 1532) that would create a Lake Houston Dredging District has passed overwhelmingly in the House and moved to the Senate. The bill received 114 Yeas and 19 Nays in the House, but has yet to pick up traction in the Senate.
Perhaps no other bill is as important to the future of NE Harris County as this one. Please contact Senator Brandon Creighton who represents the Lake Houston area and ask him to sponsor HB1532 in the Senate.
Dredge used in Emergency West Fork Dredging program by Army Corps after Harvey
What HB1532 Would Do
Here is the engrossed version of HB1532. Engrossed means that it incorporates amendments added to the bill in the House before passage. So, it is the latest version as of this writing.
Lake Houston supplies water for more than 2 million people in the Houston region. But sediment buildups from sand mines and new development upstream continue to plague it. And that, in turn has contributed to widespread flooding.
Such sediment buildups have reduced the capacity of Lake Houston by almost 10% as the region’s population has grown by more than 500%.
Texas Water Development Board and US Census Bureau
While dredging since Hurricane Harvey has helped remove some of the sediment in the headwaters of the lake, we need a long-term, ongoing maintenance program to address new sediment that continues to come downstream with ever major rain.
The Committee Substitute of HB 1532 seeks to address this issue by creating the Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District. It will provide dredging and maintenance operations in the area that improve water flow and reduce sediment buildup.
A five-person board would govern the district:
One director appointed by the Houston City Council
Two appointed by Houston Public Works
One appointed by the Mayor
One appointed Harris County Commissioners Court
Dredging could take place only in Harris County; Montgomery County is not affected. The Lake itself; East and West Forks of the San Jacinto; Luce Bayou; and Caney Creek are all in bounds.
The District could also sign inter-local agreements with cities such as Humble, to address sediment in its channels that lead to the lake. However, the District could not charge other entities for the dredging it does under such inter-local agreements.
Provisions in the bill prohibit the District from degrading water quality in the Lake. And the District would have to obtain permission from Houston Public Works before doing any dredging.
Financing
The District could NOT levy taxes or charge a fee. But it could issue bonds secured by district revenue.
The bill authorizes the legislature to fund the district’s activities but caps appropriations at $25 million per fiscal year until September 1, 2027.
The bill requires the District to study methods of financing and to make the study’s results available to the public. Early talk around financing focused on beneficial uses of sediment removed from the lake and its tributaries.
For instance, the District could sell the spoils to developers who need to raise slabs or build up areas. Spoils could also be used in projects such as the Ike Dike or road improvements.
Please Help
HB 1532 does not:
Raise taxes
Levy fees
Affect people outside of Harris County
HB 1532 would:
Make the people and businesses of the Lake Houston area safer
Help restore the capacity of Lake Houston and its tributaries
As long as surrounding counties keep sending sediment downstream, the least they can do is support HB 1532.
Please email Senator Brandon Creighton or call his office at (512) 463-0104. Please ask him to sponsor HB 1532 in the Senate. It will only take a minute!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/4/25
2805 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/SJR_288_016-e1746401725896.jpg?fit=1100%2C504&ssl=15041100adminadmin2025-05-04 19:03:392025-05-04 21:06:01Ask Sen. Creighton to Support Lake Houston Dredging District Bill
Montgomery County Engineering Letter Blasts Ryko’s Drainage Study
5/6/25 – ReduceFlooding has obtained an uncharacteristically blunt letter via a Freedom of Information Act request to Montgomery County’s Engineering Department. The letter blasts Ryko’s Drainage Study for its proposed 5,500-acre development deep in the floodplains near the confluence of four major streams across US59 from Kingwood.
Overview of Drainage Study Objections
The letter, which brims with frustration, strongly objects to Ryko’s Preliminary Drainage Impact Study based on safety concerns. It then lectures Ryko’s engineers about their responsibility to protect the public and goes on to address seven specific concerns.
The author of the letter has since left the Montgomery County Engineering Department after James Noack, who was Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner at the time, reportedly objected to the letter’s objections.
Letter Later Rescinded
A month later, Montgomery County’s Director of Engineering Services sent a second letter to Ryko’s engineers. The terse, three-sentence letter rescinded the first letter and said that the head county engineer would re-review the drainage study.
Montgomery County did not supply any additional details regarding the re-review. Nor did it supply the drainage study submitted by Ryko (although I separately received a copy from Harris County).
Noack was voted out of office last year and replaced by a new Precinct 3 Commissioner, Ritch Wheeler. In a town hall meeting last month, Wheeler said he tried to buy the land from Ryko, but the company wanted an outrageous sum of money for it – more than four times the appraised value. Harris County also reportedly tried to buy the land, but could not afford Ryko’s price either.
Litany of Safety Objections
The first letter to Ryko’s engineers is a classic for its lack of ambiguity. It states that the deceased County Engineer, Dan Wilds, “provided a considerable amount of objection to this development over the years.”
“The most obvious objection,” it continues, “being that that this proposed development is located at the confluence of four major streams: Turkey Creek and Cypress Creek, Cypress Creek and Spring Creek, and finally Spring Creek and the West Fork of the San Jacinto River.”
The letter then reminds the two engineers for Ryko of their responsibilities under Section 137.55 of the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (TBPELS). The regulations outline the duty of engineers to protect the public by ensuring their work does not endanger health, safety, property, or welfare. This includes preventing unsafe practices.
The letter concludes with a litany of concerns about the drainage impact study and the proposed development. The last concern states, “The County Engineer’s office believes that any development in the subject area, at the confluence of Spring Creek and the San Jacinto River, will be at a higher risk of flooding during extreme events and thus should be avoided.”
To See the Original Letters
For a printable PDF of the first letter, click here. For the second letter rescinding the first letter, click here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/6/25
2807 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.
If any responsible parties have opposing or additional points of view on this subject, I will be happy to publish them.
Proposed Federal Rule Change to Endangered Species Act Could Make Floodplain Development Easier
5/5/25 – A proposed Federal rule change by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concerning threatened and endangered species could make floodplain development easier.
Changing Definition of ‘Take’
The rule change would limit the Endangered Species Act’s power to protect habitat by deleting the word ‘harm’ from the explanation of what it means to ‘take’ a member of an endangered species.
The definition (page 3, paragraph 12) says, “The term ‘take’ means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
‘Harm’ is the only word in that definition applying to habitat. As NPR reported, “For decades, federal agencies have interpreted ‘harm’ broadly, to include actions that modify or degrade habitats in ways that impair endangered species’ ability to feed, breed or find shelter.”
And in the north Houston area, floodplains provide prime habitat.
Many environmentalists point to habitat loss as the major cause of species loss. They also point to habitat protection as the reason for animals, such as bald eagles, being removed recently from the Endangered Species List.
But if the proposed rule change is adopted, only actions that directly hurt or kill actual animals, not the habitats they rely on, would remain covered by the act.
And that could make floodplain development easier because many threatened and endangered species live near water, imposing additional burdens on developers.
Why the Proposed Change?
The Federal Register says, “The existing regulatory definition of ‘harm,’ which includes habitat modification, runs contrary to the best meaning of the statutory term ‘take.’”
But the definition of ‘take’ has included ‘harm’ for 50+ years. So, clearly this rule change is politically motivated. And in fact, this is the USFWS’s response to Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025.
The introduction to the executive order states that the “ever-expanding morass of complicated Federal regulation imposes massive costs on the lives of millions of Americans, creates a substantial restraint on our economic growth and ability to build and innovate, and hampers our global competitiveness.”
Any Change Would Not Be Immediate
Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s office provided this map showing the nine steps necessary in adopting such a rule change.
We are in the early stages of this process.
People born before the Endangered Species Act became law in 1973 may remember the precipitous loss of bald eagle habitat. They may also remember how protection of that habitat helped bring the species back. At one point, there were fewer than 500 nesting pairs in the entire lower 48 states – an estimated 99.5% population collapse.
It’s unclear how the change of this definition in the Endangered Species Act will affect eagles. Eagles are no longer on the endangered species list. But they are protected under other laws, such as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, also administered by USFWS.
Impact in the San Jacinto Watershed, Floodplains
The Endangered Species Act has hugely affected the oil and gas industry, mining, and land development – all staples of the local economy. So, locally, opinions on this proposed rule change may be sharply divided.
But we also should recognize that many people choose to live in the north Houston area because of the proximity to nature and the abundant wildlife found here. Some of it has survived for the last 50 years because of the Endangered Species Act.
A case in point would be the bald eagle, which can be seen regularly along the shores of the San Jacinto. And where Ryko is planning on building 7,000 homes on 5,500 acres just upstream from Kingwood.
How Do You Feel?
If you would like to add your voice to this debate, here are instructions for submitting a public comment. The page also includes a lengthy discussion of pros and cons from different points of view.
The Federal Register indicates that the public comment period on the proposed rule change will remain open through May 19, 2025. So far, people have submitted more than 26,000 comments.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/5/25
2806 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.
Ask Sen. Creighton to Support Lake Houston Dredging District Bill
5/4/25 – A bill by State Rep. Charles Cunningham (HB 1532) that would create a Lake Houston Dredging District has passed overwhelmingly in the House and moved to the Senate. The bill received 114 Yeas and 19 Nays in the House, but has yet to pick up traction in the Senate.
Perhaps no other bill is as important to the future of NE Harris County as this one. Please contact Senator Brandon Creighton who represents the Lake Houston area and ask him to sponsor HB1532 in the Senate.
What HB1532 Would Do
Here is the engrossed version of HB1532. Engrossed means that it incorporates amendments added to the bill in the House before passage. So, it is the latest version as of this writing.
Lake Houston supplies water for more than 2 million people in the Houston region. But sediment buildups from sand mines and new development upstream continue to plague it. And that, in turn has contributed to widespread flooding.
While dredging since Hurricane Harvey has helped remove some of the sediment in the headwaters of the lake, we need a long-term, ongoing maintenance program to address new sediment that continues to come downstream with ever major rain.
The Committee Substitute of HB 1532 seeks to address this issue by creating the Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District. It will provide dredging and maintenance operations in the area that improve water flow and reduce sediment buildup.
A five-person board would govern the district:
Dredging could take place only in Harris County; Montgomery County is not affected. The Lake itself; East and West Forks of the San Jacinto; Luce Bayou; and Caney Creek are all in bounds.
The District could also sign inter-local agreements with cities such as Humble, to address sediment in its channels that lead to the lake. However, the District could not charge other entities for the dredging it does under such inter-local agreements.
Provisions in the bill prohibit the District from degrading water quality in the Lake. And the District would have to obtain permission from Houston Public Works before doing any dredging.
Financing
The District could NOT levy taxes or charge a fee. But it could issue bonds secured by district revenue.
The bill authorizes the legislature to fund the district’s activities but caps appropriations at $25 million per fiscal year until September 1, 2027.
The bill requires the District to study methods of financing and to make the study’s results available to the public. Early talk around financing focused on beneficial uses of sediment removed from the lake and its tributaries.
For instance, the District could sell the spoils to developers who need to raise slabs or build up areas. Spoils could also be used in projects such as the Ike Dike or road improvements.
Please Help
HB 1532 does not:
HB 1532 would:
As long as surrounding counties keep sending sediment downstream, the least they can do is support HB 1532.
Please email Senator Brandon Creighton or call his office at (512) 463-0104. Please ask him to sponsor HB 1532 in the Senate. It will only take a minute!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/4/25
2805 Days since Hurricane Harvey