No single authority in the San Jacinto River Basin has responsibility for flooding. Instead we have jurisdictional fragmentation. Multiple jurisdictions have limited authority to solve parts of our regional flooding problems.
The Plan states, “Many of these entities have the authority to implement flood-related planning or projects but do not necessarily have the authority to implement or enforce floodplain management practices or standards.”
Collectively, our governmental organizations don’t match the nature of the problem: floodwater doesn’t respect jurisdictional boundaries. Yet people don’t want to give up their limited authority.
Local control doesn’t yield a collective solution.
Scarborough Example
The Scarborough Development in southern Montgomery County at the confluence of Spring and Cypress Creeks with the San Jacinto West Fork exemplifies the regulatory issue. Scarborough’s 5,300 acres lie between multiple jurisdictions.
The proposed development is in Montgomery County but borders Harris County. Part of it is in Houston’s extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and part isn’t.
FEMA has updated its flood maps only for portions of the proposed development that lie within Houston’s ETJ.
The development lies in Montgomery County Precinct 3 but will affect flooding in Precinct 4 and Harris County.
Montgomery County doesn’t have a flood control district. Harris County does.
Subsidence plagues the area and development will make subsidence worse. That could create a bowl in the landscape that increases flood risk. But the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District is not considering subsidence in its new plans and will not acknowledge the concerns of the Harris-Galvestion Subsidence District.
Almost all of the proposed development lies in a floodplain or floodway. See below.
Only dark gray areas within red border are elevated above floodplains.US59 bridge during Harvey at intersection of Montgomery and Harris Counties, Houston and Humble; Scarborough just out of frame to right.
San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group Recommendations
To solve this problem and others like it, the San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning group is considering a series of legislative and regulatory recommendations that include:
Creating, consolidating, or reorganizing regional flood authorities, flood-control districts, river authority programs, and drainage districts where broader regional coordination is needed.
Clarifying roles and responsibilities for floodplain management in extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) areas to reduce gaps or overlaps in responsibility for floodplain management, permitting, and drainage standards..
Three Aspects of Current, Self-Defeating “Flood Governance”
In business, management consultants commonly call this a “silo problem.” The more precise governance term is an “institutional collective-action dilemma,” compounded by a “scale mismatch.”
Organizational Silos
McKinsey describes how optimizing individual functions in silos can undermine performance when trying to address a collective concern. In this case, think of departments as jurisdictions and the San Jacinto River watershed as the organization.
Theoretically, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) has responsibility to control flooding throughout the river basin. But the SJRA almost never exercises it; they say they don’t have funding. The closest they’ve come to flood management is when they established a flood management division after Hurricane Harvey. But they have only managed a series of studies funded by others. And the studies have produced no tangible improvements to date.
Because floodwaters don’t respect jurisdictional boundaries, independent authorities need a shared solution. However, disagreements over costs, benefits, commitments, and loss of autonomy impede collective action.
Political scientist Richard Feiock describes this as “an institutional collective-action dilemma.” The term explicitly addresses barriers to coordinated decisions, including negotiation costs, constraints on autonomy, and difficulty securing enforceable commitments. Cooperation can benefit the region while requiring individual governments to accept obligations or surrender some discretion.
Scale/Institutional Mismatch
The geographic reach of the flooding problem exceeds the geographic reach of the institutions empowered to address it.
The term “scale mismatch” captures this dilemma. Some water-governance researchers call this the problem of institutional fit: whether the institutions managing a resource match its physical processes and geographic extent. Academic research has applied this concept specifically to flood planning across jurisdictions.
Fragmented Flood Governance and Conflicting Mandates
In Texas, authority to address flooding issues does not match the geographic extent of watersheds. And local incentives do not necessarily produce river-basin-wide results. The problem is especially acute for those who live or work at the intersection of jurisdictional boundaries.
Yes, multiple authorities could achieve a collective solution through binding agreements, shared standards, funding, and accountability. But there is no effective mechanism for making local decisions serve basin-wide, flood-reduction concerns.
Worse, some of the jurisdictions that have responsibility to fix flooding also have conflicting mandates. For instance, Montgomery County Engineering, which would permit the Scarborough Development, answers to the County Judge and Commissioners. Their top priority may be economic growth.
Another example: The Texas General Land Office, which administers $14 billion of Flood Remediation and Mitigation money for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, has reportedly invested $140 million in developing the Scarborough land – some of the most flood-prone land in the region.
Need for a River-Basin-Wide Flood-Control District
One in five Texans live in a known floodplain … and more than one in four in the San Jacinto River Basin (27%). Nationally, a commonly cited benchmark for people living in floodplains is 10%.
According to the 2024 State Flood Plan, 5.2 million Texans live or work in identified 100-year or 500-year flood-hazard areas. Those areas contain 1.66 million buildings. And those figures would likely grow if all floodplains were mapped using current rainfall statistics.
Clearly, the upcoming state legislature should seriously consider the San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group’s recommendations above to consolidate responsibilities for flood management.
Early voting starts this month. In the meantime, sign the petition protesting Scarborough if you haven’t already done so. One of the region’s most respected hydrologists has said that if the property gets developed, it would be like aiming a firehose at the Kingwood/Humble area.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/5/26
3324 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/2023/10/Harvey-at-59-Bridge-IMG_3686-e1741129570215.jpeg?fit=1100%2C685&ssl=16851100adminadmin2026-10-05 15:14:362026-10-05 15:19:10Why 27% of People in the San Jacinto River Basin Live or Work in a Floodplain
10/4/26 – Floods have happened throughout history and will continue to happen. We cannot control the weather. We can, however, control whether we put people in harm’s way. Flood disasters are optional.
The 5300-acre Scarborough property at the confluence of the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, and Cypress Creek is one of the most flood-prone properties in the Houston region. The developer hopes to build up to 7,000 homes there.
Only tiny portions of the Scarborough property lie above floodplains and floodways. And the lowest portions go under 25-30 feet of water during large floods.
Scarborough Property Makes Excellent Candidate for Conservation
That’s why this property, makes a perfect candidate for conservation, much like Lake Houston Park did iin the East Fork Watershed during the early 1980s.
In its September 2026 meeting, the San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group (SJRFPG) identified gaps in current regulations and legislation. It also laid out proposals to plug those gaps. In my previous post, I used the Scarborough property to dramatize the importance of three of those recommendations. They concerned building codes, elevations, and overlapping jurisdictions.
This post will discuss how three more of the SJRFPG recommendations apply to the Scarborough property. They concern:
Legislative incentives for conservation easements, land conservation, restoration, riparian protection, wetland protection, and landowner stewardship practices in flood-prone areas
Regulatory changes that promote nature-based solutions, green infrastructure, floodplain preservation, conservation, and hybrid gray/green approaches
A Scarborough subsidiary called the San Jacinto Preserve actually owns the land, which Scarborough bought from Ryko in 2025. It is a haven for wildlife, including bald eagles. Currently, the Bayou Land Conservancy manages a small conservation easement on several sensitive areas within the property.
File photo. Bald eagle in flight over West Fork near Scarborough property
In my opinion, Texas Parks and Wildlife needs to step up and turn the land into another state park. That would prevent homes from being built on the property and flooding. It would also prevent an increase in flood risk to homes downstream. One of the region’s leading hydrologists has said that if this property gets developed, it would be like aiming a fire hose at the Kingwood/Humble area.
Floodplain encroachment increases the chances of future man-made disasters. And mitigating those disasters typically costs far fewer tax dollars than simply conserving flood-prone property in the first place. Plus, dozens of studies have shown that proximity to parks increases surrounding home values as much as 20% and provides healthy, recreational opportunities for everyone.
If you haven’t yet signed the petition against the Scarborough Development, please sign it today.
Wetlands on Scarborough property
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/4/2026
3323 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/2025/04/20250417-Ryko-property-copy-1.jpg?fit=1100%2C659&ssl=16591100adminadmin2026-10-04 12:09:162026-10-04 12:09:17Flooding is Predictable, Flood Disasters are Optional
10/2/26 – At least one in five Texans currently live in floodplains. And the percentage is probably higher than that given how sporadically floodplain maps get updated. Against that backdrop, San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group (SJRFPG) has proposed 36 recommendations for the next State Flood Plan to improve our safety.
The recommendations plug gaps in legislation and regulations. They aren’t just words on paper. During the next big flood, they could mean the difference between staying dry or getting water in your house. In extreme cases, they could even make the difference between life and death.
To help dramatize the importance of these regulations, I’d like to present some real world examples in a series of posts. I’ll start with the 5300-acre proposed Scarborough development upstream from Lake Houston. It involves at least 14 of the proposed recommendations.
The Scarborough Example
One of the region’s leading hydrologists has said, “If that property gets developed, it will be like aiming a firehose at Kingwood and Humble.”
The property lies almost entirely in the floodway and floodplains at the confluence of the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, Cypress Creek and Turkey Creek – one of the most flood-prone areas in the region. Ponds and wetlands dot the property. During floods, homeowners on the Scarborough property could become trapped by rising waters, which has reached approximately 25 feet above dry land near the US59 bridge over the West Fork.
At a minimum, the following recommendations could affect development on the Scarborough land and public safety in surrounding areas.
L4 – Update current statewide building codes with appropriate freeboard (safety margin above floodplain) or higher flood standards
L7 – Clarify and expand county regulatory authority for floodplain management, land-use planning, waterway setbacks, permitting, and management of new development in unincorporated areas
L9 – Expand funding for flood early warning systems, stream gages, low-water crossing safety improvements, flood-hazard signage, gates, and roadway warning systems
L10 – Provide funding and incentives for conservation easements, land conservation, restoration, riparian protection, wetland protection, and landowner stewardship practices in flood-prone areas
L12 – Support creation, consolidation, or reorganization of regional flood authorities, flood-control districts, river authority programs, drainage districts where broader regional coordination is needed
A5 – Develop state incentives for local governments to participate in the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Community Rating System (CRS) program. CRS exceeds minimum requirements of NFIP and will help achieve state flood plan requirements
A6 – Establish a publicly available statewide database to track flood-related fatalities
A8 – Model future flood conditions uniformly across the state
A10 – Promote nature-based solutions, green infrastructure, floodplain preservation, conservation, and hybrid gray/green approaches
A11 – Establish statewide building standards for minimum finished-floor elevations above the 500-year floodplain
A14 – Improve methods for measuring and documenting flood damages, including uninsured losses, actual flooded structures, financial damages, agricultural damages, and industrial losses, rather than just relying on flood-insurance claims which undercount damages and economic consequences
A16 – Clarify roles and responsibilities for floodplain management in extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) areas to reduce gaps or overlaps in responsibility for floodplain management, permitting, and drainage standards.
Explaining all these could take thousands of words, so let me focus on three today and discuss the rest in future posts.
Building Codes, Elevations and Overlapping Jurisdictions
Part of the Scarborough property lies in the City of Houston’s Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction and part lies in unincorporated Montgomery County. The greatest potential impact of modern flood-design standards isn’t on the land already in the 100-year floodplain. It’s on the land between the 100- and 500-year flood elevations. And only tiny portions of the Scarborough property lie outside the 500-year floodplain.
Scarborough Area in center. FEMA’s Flood Hazard Layer Viewer shows pre-Harvey floodplain boundaries which have since expanded, but not yet been adopted. Only the dark green areas inside the brown areas in center are above Scarborough’s current 500-year floodplain.
The latest edition of the international building code provides greater recognition of 500-year flood hazards than the 2012 edition.
One provision in the newest standards that could affect Scarborough: the movement toward regulating/designing for the 500-year floodplain rather than stopping at the traditional 100-year floodplain.
The American Society of Civil Engineers explains that the change was prompted partly by the experience of structures suffering flood damage despite complying with existing codes.
If the state adopted the latest edition of building codes, construction requirements could increase for:
Buildings between the 500-year and 100-year floodplains
Flood-design elevations
Flood loads
Flood-resistant materials
Elevation of utilities and equipment
Flood-proofing (especially significant for commercial buildings at ground level)
FEMA’s analysis of the newest International Codes also cites floodproofing documentation, elevators and conveying systems, manufactured homes, accessory structures and other flood-resistant construction requirements.
Costs for structures between the new 100-year and 500-year flood zones would see the most impact.
Scarborough is unusual because of its jurisdictional circumstances involving MoCo and Houston. MoCo regs unquestionably matter in its unincorporated jurisdiction. But would Houston regulations trump MoCo’s inside its ETJ? Would new statewide codes trump Houston’s?
Depending on the answers, the Scarborough property could become uneconomical to develop. At that point, other SJFPG recommendations could come into play. But more on those in subsequent posts.
In the meantime, if you haven’t yet signed the petition against Scarborough’s development, please do so now.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/2/2026
3321 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/2025/11/20251103-Layered-Maps.jpg?fit=1100%2C563&ssl=15631100adminadmin2026-10-02 19:31:092026-10-02 19:31:10Scarborough Illustrates Value of Flood-Planning Group’s Recommendations
Why 27% of People in the San Jacinto River Basin Live or Work in a Floodplain
No single authority in the San Jacinto River Basin has responsibility for flooding. Instead we have jurisdictional fragmentation. Multiple jurisdictions have limited authority to solve parts of our regional flooding problems.
The amended 2023 San Jacinto Regional Flood Plan (Page 1-13) indicates the river basin has:
The Plan states, “Many of these entities have the authority to implement flood-related planning or projects but do not necessarily have the authority to implement or enforce floodplain management practices or standards.”
Collectively, our governmental organizations don’t match the nature of the problem: floodwater doesn’t respect jurisdictional boundaries. Yet people don’t want to give up their limited authority.
Scarborough Example
The Scarborough Development in southern Montgomery County at the confluence of Spring and Cypress Creeks with the San Jacinto West Fork exemplifies the regulatory issue. Scarborough’s 5,300 acres lie between multiple jurisdictions.
Almost all of the proposed development lies in a floodplain or floodway. See below.
San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group Recommendations
To solve this problem and others like it, the San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning group is considering a series of legislative and regulatory recommendations that include:
Three Aspects of Current, Self-Defeating “Flood Governance”
In business, management consultants commonly call this a “silo problem.” The more precise governance term is an “institutional collective-action dilemma,” compounded by a “scale mismatch.”
Organizational Silos
McKinsey describes how optimizing individual functions in silos can undermine performance when trying to address a collective concern. In this case, think of departments as jurisdictions and the San Jacinto River watershed as the organization.
Theoretically, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) has responsibility to control flooding throughout the river basin. But the SJRA almost never exercises it; they say they don’t have funding. The closest they’ve come to flood management is when they established a flood management division after Hurricane Harvey. But they have only managed a series of studies funded by others. And the studies have produced no tangible improvements to date.
So, by default, the watershed functions under multiple jurisdictions that each work within their own boundaries, responsibilities, budgets, and priorities. However, solving flooding problems requires collective action across jurisdictions.
Institutional Collective-Action Dilemma
Because floodwaters don’t respect jurisdictional boundaries, independent authorities need a shared solution. However, disagreements over costs, benefits, commitments, and loss of autonomy impede collective action.
Political scientist Richard Feiock describes this as “an institutional collective-action dilemma.” The term explicitly addresses barriers to coordinated decisions, including negotiation costs, constraints on autonomy, and difficulty securing enforceable commitments. Cooperation can benefit the region while requiring individual governments to accept obligations or surrender some discretion.
Scale/Institutional Mismatch
The geographic reach of the flooding problem exceeds the geographic reach of the institutions empowered to address it.
The term “scale mismatch” captures this dilemma. Some water-governance researchers call this the problem of institutional fit: whether the institutions managing a resource match its physical processes and geographic extent. Academic research has applied this concept specifically to flood planning across jurisdictions.
Fragmented Flood Governance and Conflicting Mandates
In Texas, authority to address flooding issues does not match the geographic extent of watersheds. And local incentives do not necessarily produce river-basin-wide results. The problem is especially acute for those who live or work at the intersection of jurisdictional boundaries.
Yes, multiple authorities could achieve a collective solution through binding agreements, shared standards, funding, and accountability. But there is no effective mechanism for making local decisions serve basin-wide, flood-reduction concerns.
Worse, some of the jurisdictions that have responsibility to fix flooding also have conflicting mandates. For instance, Montgomery County Engineering, which would permit the Scarborough Development, answers to the County Judge and Commissioners. Their top priority may be economic growth.
Another example: The Texas General Land Office, which administers $14 billion of Flood Remediation and Mitigation money for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, has reportedly invested $140 million in developing the Scarborough land – some of the most flood-prone land in the region.
Need for a River-Basin-Wide Flood-Control District
One in five Texans live in a known floodplain … and more than one in four in the San Jacinto River Basin (27%). Nationally, a commonly cited benchmark for people living in floodplains is 10%.
According to the 2024 State Flood Plan, 5.2 million Texans live or work in identified 100-year or 500-year flood-hazard areas. Those areas contain 1.66 million buildings. And those figures would likely grow if all floodplains were mapped using current rainfall statistics.
Clearly, the upcoming state legislature should seriously consider the San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group’s recommendations above to consolidate responsibilities for flood management.
State Representative Dennis Paul proposed such legislation previously. But the parochial concerns of local authorities, such as Harris County Commissioner Adrian Garcia, fearful of losing influence and control, killed the bill.
Early voting starts this month. In the meantime, sign the petition protesting Scarborough if you haven’t already done so. One of the region’s most respected hydrologists has said that if the property gets developed, it would be like aiming a firehose at the Kingwood/Humble area.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/5/26
3324 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.
Flooding is Predictable, Flood Disasters are Optional
10/4/26 – Floods have happened throughout history and will continue to happen. We cannot control the weather. We can, however, control whether we put people in harm’s way. Flood disasters are optional.
The 5300-acre Scarborough property at the confluence of the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, and Cypress Creek is one of the most flood-prone properties in the Houston region. The developer hopes to build up to 7,000 homes there.
Only tiny portions of the Scarborough property lie above floodplains and floodways. And the lowest portions go under 25-30 feet of water during large floods.
Scarborough Property Makes Excellent Candidate for Conservation
That’s why this property, makes a perfect candidate for conservation, much like Lake Houston Park did iin the East Fork Watershed during the early 1980s.
In its September 2026 meeting, the San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group (SJRFPG) identified gaps in current regulations and legislation. It also laid out proposals to plug those gaps. In my previous post, I used the Scarborough property to dramatize the importance of three of those recommendations. They concerned building codes, elevations, and overlapping jurisdictions.
This post will discuss how three more of the SJRFPG recommendations apply to the Scarborough property. They concern:
State Park Needed
A Scarborough subsidiary called the San Jacinto Preserve actually owns the land, which Scarborough bought from Ryko in 2025. It is a haven for wildlife, including bald eagles. Currently, the Bayou Land Conservancy manages a small conservation easement on several sensitive areas within the property.
In my opinion, Texas Parks and Wildlife needs to step up and turn the land into another state park. That would prevent homes from being built on the property and flooding. It would also prevent an increase in flood risk to homes downstream. One of the region’s leading hydrologists has said that if this property gets developed, it would be like aiming a fire hose at the Kingwood/Humble area.
Floodplain encroachment increases the chances of future man-made disasters. And mitigating those disasters typically costs far fewer tax dollars than simply conserving flood-prone property in the first place. Plus, dozens of studies have shown that proximity to parks increases surrounding home values as much as 20% and provides healthy, recreational opportunities for everyone.
The Houston City Council, Harris County Commissioners Court, the Harris County Community Resilience Flood Task Force, Bayou Land Conservancy and nearly 10,000 surrounding residents have all protested the development of this land.
If you haven’t yet signed the petition against the Scarborough Development, please sign it today.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/4/2026
3323 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.
Scarborough Illustrates Value of Flood-Planning Group’s Recommendations
10/2/26 – At least one in five Texans currently live in floodplains. And the percentage is probably higher than that given how sporadically floodplain maps get updated. Against that backdrop, San Jacinto Regional Flood Planning Group (SJRFPG) has proposed 36 recommendations for the next State Flood Plan to improve our safety.
The recommendations plug gaps in legislation and regulations. They aren’t just words on paper. During the next big flood, they could mean the difference between staying dry or getting water in your house. In extreme cases, they could even make the difference between life and death.
To help dramatize the importance of these regulations, I’d like to present some real world examples in a series of posts. I’ll start with the 5300-acre proposed Scarborough development upstream from Lake Houston. It involves at least 14 of the proposed recommendations.
The Scarborough Example
One of the region’s leading hydrologists has said, “If that property gets developed, it will be like aiming a firehose at Kingwood and Humble.”
Houston City Council unanimously passed a resolution against the development. So did Harris County Commissioners Court. A Montgomery County Engineer warned of the dangers. Almost 10,000 neighbors have signed a protest petition. But Montgomery County Commissioners have yet to take a position. And the Texas General Land Office, which is responsible for managing $14 billion of federal flood mitigation dollars in Texas is backing the development, reportedly investing as much as $140 million according to State Representative Steve Toth.
The property lies almost entirely in the floodway and floodplains at the confluence of the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, Cypress Creek and Turkey Creek – one of the most flood-prone areas in the region. Ponds and wetlands dot the property. During floods, homeowners on the Scarborough property could become trapped by rising waters, which has reached approximately 25 feet above dry land near the US59 bridge over the West Fork.
So, how could the SJRFPG recommendations improve nearby public safety if adopted?
Applicable Recommendations
At a minimum, the following recommendations could affect development on the Scarborough land and public safety in surrounding areas.
Explaining all these could take thousands of words, so let me focus on three today and discuss the rest in future posts.
Building Codes, Elevations and Overlapping Jurisdictions
Statewide Texas building codes haven’t been updated since 2021. But at that time, the legislature adopted the 2012 International Residential and Building Codes (pre-Harvey) now in effect. Cities and counties may adopt newer editions or local amendments. And two jurisdictions affecting Scarborough have, but they don’t agree.
Part of the Scarborough property lies in the City of Houston’s Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction and part lies in unincorporated Montgomery County. The greatest potential impact of modern flood-design standards isn’t on the land already in the 100-year floodplain. It’s on the land between the 100- and 500-year flood elevations. And only tiny portions of the Scarborough property lie outside the 500-year floodplain.
The latest edition of the international building code provides greater recognition of 500-year flood hazards than the 2012 edition.
One provision in the newest standards that could affect Scarborough: the movement toward regulating/designing for the 500-year floodplain rather than stopping at the traditional 100-year floodplain.
The American Society of Civil Engineers explains that the change was prompted partly by the experience of structures suffering flood damage despite complying with existing codes.
If the state adopted the latest edition of building codes, construction requirements could increase for:
FEMA’s analysis of the newest International Codes also cites floodproofing documentation, elevators and conveying systems, manufactured homes, accessory structures and other flood-resistant construction requirements.
Costs for structures between the new 100-year and 500-year flood zones would see the most impact.
Scarborough is unusual because of its jurisdictional circumstances involving MoCo and Houston. MoCo regs unquestionably matter in its unincorporated jurisdiction. But would Houston regulations trump MoCo’s inside its ETJ? Would new statewide codes trump Houston’s?
Depending on the answers, the Scarborough property could become uneconomical to develop. At that point, other SJFPG recommendations could come into play. But more on those in subsequent posts.
In the meantime, if you haven’t yet signed the petition against Scarborough’s development, please do so now.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/2/2026
3321 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.