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
6/5/2026 – Harris County published the agenda for its 6/11/26 Commissioners Court meeting today and Item #483 relates to the employment of Dr. Tina Petersen, PhD, PE. It reads “Request by the Commissioner of Precinct 3 for an Executive Session pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.074(a) for discussion and possible action regarding the Executive Director of the Harris County Flood Control District.”
Petersen’s performance has come under increasing scrutiny lately because of the possible loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Petersen press conference in 2023 announcing funding availability for East TC Jester CDBG-DR projectTC Jester East Basin 1B in April 2026 still not under construction.
The potential loss relates to looming deadlines on projects which Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) will miss according to its own schedules. HCFCD’s May 18, 2026, update on the projects showed that 19 of 29 CDBG projects worth $649 million will miss their deadlines:
February 28, 2027 for 6 of 11 CDBG-DR projects valued at $245.8 million
March 31, 2028 for 13 of 18 CDBG-MIT projects valued at $362.7 million.
That raises several questions:
Why will projects miss deadlines?
Who is responsible?
Can anything be done to preserve the funding?
Why Projects Could Miss Deadlines
In recent meetings, as Harris County Commissioners became increasingly concerned about impending deadlines; they forced Petersen to become specific about where projects stood, instead of offering up rosy generalizations.
As alarms started sounding, Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia, who reportedly lobbied to hire Petersen, became her chief apologist. Garcia pointed fingers at the Texas General Land Office, which administers HUD funds in Texas. He complained about undefined problems with the 2018 flood bond. And he constantly wailed about “there was never enough time.”
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE bemoaned the lack of hard data coming from HCFCD that would let commissioners make informed decisions and offer help. He also tried to speed up county processes.
Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis simply warned Petersen about “a day of reckoning.”
Precinct 4 Commissioner Leslie Briones expressed deep concerns.
Judge Lina Hidalgo said bluntly that she had lost all confidence in Petersen.
When Petersen finally submitted two detailed reports on May 1 and May 18, the depth of the problem became apparent.
But even before then, anyone who looked closely at how long it takes to construct these projects and how little time remained could see two trains heading down the tracks toward each other.
The Mercer Stormwater Detention Basin illustrates the problem. While not part of this particular group, it has a similar scope. The project should have taken Petersen a year to build on an expedited basis, but took four years. To put that in context, less than 9 months remain before the 11 CDBG-DR projects reach their deadline of February 28, 2027.
But the slowdown wasn’t just in construction. The Preliminary Engineering Report on the Kingwood Diversion Ditch was supposed to take 300 days and took more than 1400.
These projects hint at causes for delays that go far deeper than Garcia suggests. They are unrelated to the GLO and HUD.
Who is Responsible for Missing Deadlines?
The buck stops with Tina Petersen.
Since announcing the $322 million CDBG Disaster Relief grant for HCFCD in 2023, the GLO has tried to speed things up. GLO even embedded as many as seven people within HCFCD to help accelerate submission of data related to the 11 projects – something they didn’t do with any other county or municipality in Texas.
Can Anything Be Done to Preserve Funding?
Late today, HCFCD published a notice on its press briefing page under the headline: “Harris County agencies are advancing an innovative path forward to protect federal disaster recovery funding, cut through bureaucratic barriers, and keep critical flood risk reduction projects moving for residents.”
The lead paragraph says, “The proposed approach goes beyond standard government processes by coordinating across agencies, funding programs, and project timelines to solve complex federal funding challenges.”
The glowing prose was reminiscent of previous Tina Petersen briefings in Commissioners Court. It also reminded me a bit of the Enron debacle, although the GLO claims the scheme is legal under HUD rules. Today’s statement outlines the plan. It includes:
“Phasing projects across programs so eligible work can move forward under CDBG-DR while remaining project scope is delivered through CDBG-MIT.”
“Moving seven fast-moving subdivision drainage projects into the CDBG-DR program to maximize eligible spending before the federal deadline and free up approximately $125 million in HCD’s CDBG-MIT program for additional mitigation work.
“Continuing to identify eligible opportunities for any remaining CDBG-DR funds, including planning studies, additional subdivision drainage projects, project transfers, and acceleration strategies.”
The statement does not explain how Petersen intends to do more projects for the same dollars. Nor does it explain how she intends to complete those projects without speeding them up. She’s appears to be playing a shell game with more than $800 million tax dollars that will make auditing more difficult. However, in fairness, HCFCD says it will provide more details in a Tuesday press conference.
This scheme/plan will also be considered in commissioners court on 6/11/26 under Item #125.
Related Items for Discussion on 6/11/26
Other related HCFCD items on Thursday’s agenda include two staff augmentation proposals totaling $32 million for outside contractors to provide program management, project management, construction management, and inspection services for the development and implementation of CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT projects.
#248 Approval of $6 million for Jacobs Engineering
#267 Approval of $10 million for BGE, Inc; $10 million for Quiddity Engineering; and $6 million for WSP USA
One wonders whether those expenditures would have been necessary had HCFCD been getting projects into production faster.
More news to follow on HCFCD’s CDBG plan after the press conference on Tuesday.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/5/2026
3202 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/2023/09/20230925-RJR_2415.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2026-06-05 22:01:262026-06-06 15:47:48Harris County Commissioners to Discuss HCFCD Exec Director’s Employment…Again
6/4/2026 – Tonight, from 5-6:30 PM, Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger will host an open house at Kingwood Community Center (4102 Rustic Woods Drive, Kingwood TX 77345). The focus will be on utilities in Kingwood.
According to Demari Perez, Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger’s District E Deputy Chief of Staff, a large percentage of the calls coming into their office concern utility services. This is your chance to speak directly to the people providing those services.
Utility crew working on power lines by front of Kingwood at Kingwood Drive
The utility meeting will have an open-house format (no formal presentations), so that you speak directly with the people providing services.
Other groups, such as Trees for Houston and Trees for Kingwood, will also be available, because trees frequently interrupt utility service and people need to know what they can do to help.
The following groups will have booths set up around the room:
CenterPoint Energy
Comcast
xfinity
UnionPacific
Trees for Houston
Trees for Kingwood
Houston Office of Emergency Management
Emphasis on Practical Safety Information
According to the Council Member Flickinger, the utility meeting will feature practical safety information about resources designed to help you, your family and your neighborhood. For instance:
Safe vegetation practices and the Right Tree, Right Place approach
When and why to call 811 before you dig
How to stay safe around railways and utility equipment
Hurricane preparedness tips and local resources
Flickinger said, “Ask questions, explore helpful information and share what matters most in your neighborhood, so we can better support the community we serve.”
One of the first things people often lose in Kingwood is power when trees fall against overhead lines. And with the loss of power comes loss of communication.
Anyone who lived in Kingwood in 2008 when Hurricane Ike knocked out power for 22 days knows what I am talking about.
UnionPacific
Perez says her office also frequently gets questions about trains stopped on rail tracks. One of the questions I frequently get is about when UP will finish the rail crossings for the new feeder roads at Northpark. They’re delaying work on the bridge over the tracks and Loop 494.
New surface lanes at Northpark
From UP’s perspective, Northpark is reportedly part of a much larger project to coordinate rail crossings at Ford, Knox, Northpark and Royal Crossing. You may want to ask them about that and when it will happen.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/4/2026
3201 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/20240716-DJI_20240716120318_0355_D-2.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2026-06-04 12:52:472026-06-04 12:56:59Utility Meeting at Kingwood Community Center Tonight
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.
Harris County Commissioners to Discuss HCFCD Exec Director’s Employment…Again
6/5/2026 – Harris County published the agenda for its 6/11/26 Commissioners Court meeting today and Item #483 relates to the employment of Dr. Tina Petersen, PhD, PE. It reads “Request by the Commissioner of Precinct 3 for an Executive Session pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.074(a) for discussion and possible action regarding the Executive Director of the Harris County Flood Control District.”
Petersen’s performance has come under increasing scrutiny lately because of the possible loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The potential loss relates to looming deadlines on projects which Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) will miss according to its own schedules. HCFCD’s May 18, 2026, update on the projects showed that 19 of 29 CDBG projects worth $649 million will miss their deadlines:
That raises several questions:
Why Projects Could Miss Deadlines
In recent meetings, as Harris County Commissioners became increasingly concerned about impending deadlines; they forced Petersen to become specific about where projects stood, instead of offering up rosy generalizations.
As alarms started sounding, Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia, who reportedly lobbied to hire Petersen, became her chief apologist. Garcia pointed fingers at the Texas General Land Office, which administers HUD funds in Texas. He complained about undefined problems with the 2018 flood bond. And he constantly wailed about “there was never enough time.”
Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE bemoaned the lack of hard data coming from HCFCD that would let commissioners make informed decisions and offer help. He also tried to speed up county processes.
Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis simply warned Petersen about “a day of reckoning.”
Precinct 4 Commissioner Leslie Briones expressed deep concerns.
Judge Lina Hidalgo said bluntly that she had lost all confidence in Petersen.
When Petersen finally submitted two detailed reports on May 1 and May 18, the depth of the problem became apparent.
But even before then, anyone who looked closely at how long it takes to construct these projects and how little time remained could see two trains heading down the tracks toward each other.
The Mercer Stormwater Detention Basin illustrates the problem. While not part of this particular group, it has a similar scope. The project should have taken Petersen a year to build on an expedited basis, but took four years. To put that in context, less than 9 months remain before the 11 CDBG-DR projects reach their deadline of February 28, 2027.
But the slowdown wasn’t just in construction. The Preliminary Engineering Report on the Kingwood Diversion Ditch was supposed to take 300 days and took more than 1400.
These projects hint at causes for delays that go far deeper than Garcia suggests. They are unrelated to the GLO and HUD.
Who is Responsible for Missing Deadlines?
The buck stops with Tina Petersen.
Since announcing the $322 million CDBG Disaster Relief grant for HCFCD in 2023, the GLO has tried to speed things up. GLO even embedded as many as seven people within HCFCD to help accelerate submission of data related to the 11 projects – something they didn’t do with any other county or municipality in Texas.
Can Anything Be Done to Preserve Funding?
Late today, HCFCD published a notice on its press briefing page under the headline: “Harris County agencies are advancing an innovative path forward to protect federal disaster recovery funding, cut through bureaucratic barriers, and keep critical flood risk reduction projects moving for residents.”
The lead paragraph says, “The proposed approach goes beyond standard government processes by coordinating across agencies, funding programs, and project timelines to solve complex federal funding challenges.”
The glowing prose was reminiscent of previous Tina Petersen briefings in Commissioners Court. It also reminded me a bit of the Enron debacle, although the GLO claims the scheme is legal under HUD rules. Today’s statement outlines the plan. It includes:
The statement does not explain how Petersen intends to do more projects for the same dollars. Nor does it explain how she intends to complete those projects without speeding them up. She’s appears to be playing a shell game with more than $800 million tax dollars that will make auditing more difficult. However, in fairness, HCFCD says it will provide more details in a Tuesday press conference.
This scheme/plan will also be considered in commissioners court on 6/11/26 under Item #125.
Related Items for Discussion on 6/11/26
Other related HCFCD items on Thursday’s agenda include two staff augmentation proposals totaling $32 million for outside contractors to provide program management, project management, construction management, and inspection services for the development and implementation of CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT projects.
One wonders whether those expenditures would have been necessary had HCFCD been getting projects into production faster.
Other related items include:
More news to follow on HCFCD’s CDBG plan after the press conference on Tuesday.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/5/2026
3202 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.
Utility Meeting at Kingwood Community Center Tonight
6/4/2026 – Tonight, from 5-6:30 PM, Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger will host an open house at Kingwood Community Center (4102 Rustic Woods Drive, Kingwood TX 77345). The focus will be on utilities in Kingwood.
According to Demari Perez, Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger’s District E Deputy Chief of Staff, a large percentage of the calls coming into their office concern utility services. This is your chance to speak directly to the people providing those services.
The utility meeting will have an open-house format (no formal presentations), so that you speak directly with the people providing services.
Other groups, such as Trees for Houston and Trees for Kingwood, will also be available, because trees frequently interrupt utility service and people need to know what they can do to help.
The following groups will have booths set up around the room:
Emphasis on Practical Safety Information
According to the Council Member Flickinger, the utility meeting will feature practical safety information about resources designed to help you, your family and your neighborhood. For instance:
Flickinger said, “Ask questions, explore helpful information and share what matters most in your neighborhood, so we can better support the community we serve.”
One of the first things people often lose in Kingwood is power when trees fall against overhead lines. And with the loss of power comes loss of communication.
Anyone who lived in Kingwood in 2008 when Hurricane Ike knocked out power for 22 days knows what I am talking about.
UnionPacific
Perez says her office also frequently gets questions about trains stopped on rail tracks. One of the questions I frequently get is about when UP will finish the rail crossings for the new feeder roads at Northpark. They’re delaying work on the bridge over the tracks and Loop 494.
From UP’s perspective, Northpark is reportedly part of a much larger project to coordinate rail crossings at Ford, Knox, Northpark and Royal Crossing. You may want to ask them about that and when it will happen.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/4/2026
3201 Days since Hurricane Harvey