A developer named Ryko has announced plans to build 7000 homes on floodplain land that could be inundated with 7 to 25 feet of floodwater in the next 0.2% annual chance storm. The Houston area has had four such storms in the last 10 years.
From a public policy perspective, that raises three questions:
Could homeowners on Ryko land survive a major flood?
Would evacuating them put first responders at risk?
Is there a better use for the land?
Developer’s Entire Property Likely Under Water During Harvey
Benders Landing Estates (BLE) is currently the southern extent of development in the triangle bounded by Spring Creek, the San Jacinto West Fork and the Grand Parkway. Several of the southernmost homes in BLE flooded during Harvey.
From there, the Ryko land drops 30 feet in elevation to the confluence of Spring Creek and the West Fork. So, it stands to reason that virtually everything on Ryko’s land flooded, too.
Flood height above land near confluence of Spring Creek and West Fork. From FEMA Base Flood Elevation Viewer.
Would Such Flooding Be Survivable?
At the deeper end of Ryko’s property, such a flood might not be survivable. Look at what that much water did to the townhomes in Forest Cove a little more than a mile downstream from Ryko.
Townhomes cut in half by Harvey’s floodwaters. Photo: September 14, 2017.
Close up, the damage looked like this.
Forest Cove Townhome destroyed by Harvey.
Of course, damage at the higher elevations on Ryko’s land would not be as severe. Whether Ryko’s residents could survive would depend on how deep in the floodplain they lived and whether they could evacuate before floodwaters rose.
One resident of Benders Landing Estates told me of helicopter rescues during Harvey.
Comments on this social media post during Harvey went on for five pages.
If BLE residents had to be rescued by helicopter, imagine the logistics of rescuing thousands more deeper in the floodplain.
Assuming an average population density of about 2.5 people per household, Ryko’s 7,000 homes could hold 17,500 people.
Rescuing that many residents by helicopter would be an air traffic control nightmare…especially in heavy weather with limited visibility.
Putting First Responders at Risk
Harvey’s floodwaters rose at night as people were sleeping…without warning or time to evacuate. A few miles downstream, a dozen people died as a result of injuries sustained during evacuation by boat. A first responder told me that HFD estimated the West Fork water speed at 22 MPH. That’s dangerous!
Clearly, there are no good ways to rescue that many people when floodwaters rise that high next time.
Is There a Better Use for the Land?
Yes. This land would make an ideal park. And we already have an ideal model in the nearby Lake Houston Wilderness Park. Both areas:
If wilderness floods, it won’t endanger people or property. When water recedes, life goes back to normal without:
Presidential disaster declarations
Congressional appropriations
Bankrupting the national flood insurance program
Decades of flood-mitigation grants and rebuilding efforts.
To end on a positive note, parks enhance home values for humans. Multiple studies have shown that proximity to parks enhances the value of homes.
Perhaps it’s time for Ryko to recognize that developing this land is too risky. Doing so would open themselves up to multi-million dollar lawsuits if people died in a flood…especially after they were warned by Montgomery County that developing the land was unsafe.
In my opinion, Ryko should put a reasonable price on the property that lets the State, County and/or City turn the land into a park. Then everyone could win and walk away whole.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/7/25
2808 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/2025/05/20250507-Ryko-Confluence-BFE-Viewer-25-ft.jpg?fit=1100%2C633&ssl=16331100adminadmin2025-05-07 17:14:112025-05-07 17:14:12Is It Safe to Build 7,000 Homes on Ryko Land?
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
Is It Safe to Build 7,000 Homes on Ryko Land?
A developer named Ryko has announced plans to build 7000 homes on floodplain land that could be inundated with 7 to 25 feet of floodwater in the next 0.2% annual chance storm. The Houston area has had four such storms in the last 10 years.
From a public policy perspective, that raises three questions:
Developer’s Entire Property Likely Under Water During Harvey
Benders Landing Estates (BLE) is currently the southern extent of development in the triangle bounded by Spring Creek, the San Jacinto West Fork and the Grand Parkway. Several of the southernmost homes in BLE flooded during Harvey.
From there, the Ryko land drops 30 feet in elevation to the confluence of Spring Creek and the West Fork. So, it stands to reason that virtually everything on Ryko’s land flooded, too.
FEMA’s Base Flood Elevation Viewer shows that in a 500-year flood, land at the southern end of Ryko’s property near the confluence of Spring Creek and the West Fork would be under 25 feet of water. And at the northern end, higher land would be under 7 feet.
Would Such Flooding Be Survivable?
At the deeper end of Ryko’s property, such a flood might not be survivable. Look at what that much water did to the townhomes in Forest Cove a little more than a mile downstream from Ryko.
Close up, the damage looked like this.
Of course, damage at the higher elevations on Ryko’s land would not be as severe. Whether Ryko’s residents could survive would depend on how deep in the floodplain they lived and whether they could evacuate before floodwaters rose.
One resident of Benders Landing Estates told me of helicopter rescues during Harvey.
If BLE residents had to be rescued by helicopter, imagine the logistics of rescuing thousands more deeper in the floodplain.
Assuming an average population density of about 2.5 people per household, Ryko’s 7,000 homes could hold 17,500 people.
Rescuing that many residents by helicopter would be an air traffic control nightmare…especially in heavy weather with limited visibility.
Putting First Responders at Risk
Harvey’s floodwaters rose at night as people were sleeping…without warning or time to evacuate. A few miles downstream, a dozen people died as a result of injuries sustained during evacuation by boat. A first responder told me that HFD estimated the West Fork water speed at 22 MPH. That’s dangerous!
Clearly, there are no good ways to rescue that many people when floodwaters rise that high next time.
Is There a Better Use for the Land?
Yes. This land would make an ideal park. And we already have an ideal model in the nearby Lake Houston Wilderness Park. Both areas:
If wilderness floods, it won’t endanger people or property. When water recedes, life goes back to normal without:
To end on a positive note, parks enhance home values for humans. Multiple studies have shown that proximity to parks enhances the value of homes.
Perhaps it’s time for Ryko to recognize that developing this land is too risky. Doing so would open themselves up to multi-million dollar lawsuits if people died in a flood…especially after they were warned by Montgomery County that developing the land was unsafe.
In my opinion, Ryko should put a reasonable price on the property that lets the State, County and/or City turn the land into a park. Then everyone could win and walk away whole.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/7/25
2808 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.
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.