News - Reduce Flooding

Photo Essay: Northpark Expansion Progress from 2024 to 2025

12/26/2025 – A comparison of drone photos from December 2024 and December 2025 shows considerable progress with the Northpark Expansion project in the last year. There’s still a long way to go, but we’re much closer to the end of Phase 1 now than we were a year ago.

Photos taken today show that the major missing pieces of the puzzle include:

Bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks and Loop 494
Surface roads over the tracks
Gaps in eastbound surface lanes
Sidewalks in several places
Ponds at entries
A few hundred feet of Loop 494 both north and south of Northpark

Let’s start with today’s shots. 2024’s will follow for comparison.

Pictures Taken 12/26/2025

Going from east to west from the Kingwood Diversion Ditch toward US59, I took the following pictures today.

Phase One starts roughly where the road bends in front of the new Chevron station (r). Note the new lanes coming toward camera on left and going away from camera on right. Gone is the old center ditch, replaced by giant, buried culverts.

*Slightly farther west, you can see that all but a few driveways are completed. Outbound sidewalks still need a lot of work, but inbound sidewalks are close to done in this part of the project.*

*Still looking toward US59 from over Russell Palmer Road.*

*Farther west, the view from in front of Warren’s Nursery*

*For several blocks on either side of the entrance to Kings Mill (center left) inbound lanes remain incomplete (left).*

*Farther west, that black spot in the center is where the bridge will start rising.*

*This is where a six lane bridge will carry traffic over the tracks and Loop 494. Equipment for drilling the piers has already arrived (center foreground).*

*However, to make way for the bridge, contractors must first complete four surface lanes over the tracks.*

So what’s the holdup with the surface lanes?

*Contractors have been waiting for UPRR to move its signals and reroute the electricity that powers them.*

*This is the general area where the bridge will come crest and start to come down. Outbound surface lanes (right) are already complete. But inbound surface lanes (left) still need work.*

*The bridge will reach grade level in this general area near PNC bank.*

*Both entry ponds at US59 still need liners and final landscaping.*

*One of the two turn lanes on to Northpark was re-opened last week in response to readers’ requests.*

*Looking south along 494. Drainage east of the tracks has been completed. But drainage under 494 still needs to be tied in before 494 can be completed.*

Photos Taken 12/19/2024

A year ago…

*In- and outbound traffic was still using the original lanes while contractors paved over culverts that replaced the old center ditch.*

*All of the work focused on the center lanes in preparation for traffic switches to crews could demolish and repave the outer lanes.*

*Major demolition, driveway and drainage projects were just starting on the outbound side (right).*

*Contractors had to replace both center drainage and lateral drainage to businesses.*

*West of Loop 494, traffic virtually no work had started on the inbound side (left) yet, and most of the outbound side was still being reconstructed.*

*At the end of 2024, the old northbound lanes of Loop 494 carried both directions of traffic temporarily while crews finished the new southbound lanes.*

2025 was a year filled with both frustration mostly due to utility and railroad conflicts. But it was also filled with hope for improved safety and commute times for Northpark Drive commuters. Engineers predict Phase One of Northpark expansion should finish this time next year given favorable weather and the cooperation of UPRR.

Unfortunately to date, UPRR has been less predictable than the weather.

For More Information about Northpark Expansion

For more information about the Northpark Expansion project, see the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority/TIRZ 10 website.

Alternatively, search this website for “Northpark” to see a list of more than 200 posts on the Northpark expansion project, the first all-weather evacuation route from Kingwood during extreme events.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/26/2025

3041 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Colony Ridge Attempting to Settle Lawsuits, Avoid Trial

12/24/25 – The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas posted notice on 12/19/25 about an agreement in principle to settle pending lawsuits between several Colony Ridge entities, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Parties Working Out Final Details

The parties requested until 12/31/25 to work out all the details, but the judge gave them until 1/6/26. The lawsuit began in 2023. CFPB alleged that Colony Ridge operated a “foreclosure mill” with predatory lending practices. Separately, the Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that defendants violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) by targeting consumers of Hispanic origin with a predatory loan product.

DOJ and CFPB contend that the defendants operated an illegal land sales scheme that targeted tens of thousands of Hispanic borrowers with false statements and predatory loans.

Colony Ridge advertised property in Spanish, but allegedly provided closing documents in English to under-qualified or unqualified buyers who didn’t understand them.

The joint DOJ/CFPB press release said that Colony Ridge “sells unsuspecting families flood-prone land without water, sewer, or electrical infrastructure, and that the company sets borrowers up to fail with loans they cannot afford. Roughly 1-in-4 Colony Ridge loans ends in foreclosure, after which the company repurchases the properties and sells them to new borrowers.” It amounted, say the plaintiffs, to a “set-up-to-fail scheme that has led thousands of families to lose their dreams of homeownership.”

According to the press release at the time…

“Colony Ridge accounted for more than 92% of all foreclosures recorded in Liberty County between 2017 and 2022.”

*Merry Christmas from Colony Ridge. Photo taken on Christmas Eve of 2020.*

Flood Connection

The DOJ/CFPB complaints alleged that Colony Ridge employees fail to inform borrowers of flood risk when lots have repeatedly flooded in the past, or falsely tell them the lots have not flooded. In fact, in parts of the subdivision, rain causes significant flooding, causing raw sewage to run through or around borrowers’ property, and damaging their personal belongings. To see the original lawsuit, click here.

A separate lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton may also reportedly be close to settlement.

Together, the lawsuits affect potentially tens of thousands of people.

Why Litigants Often Settle

In general, a settlement that avoids a trial offers a set of well-recognized advantages including:

Cost Control and Predictability
- Reduces legal fees and expenses
- Limits financial exposure at a known amount
- Avoids open-ended risk of adverse verdicts with interest, creates budget certainty.
Risk Reduction
- Eliminates uncertain outcomes from juries, judges, evidentiary rulings, and witness credibility
- Replaces a win/lose outcome with a negotiated result
- Avoids catastrophic downside, such as runaway verdicts, punitive damages, injunctive relief
- Limits worst-case scenarios.
Time and Resource Efficiency
- Faster resolution
- Trials in state and federal courts can run on for years, including appeals
- Lets organizations reallocate resources to core activities.
Confidentiality and Information Control
- Settlements can include confidentiality provisions, whereas trials produce public records, testimony, and findings
- Protects sensitive information
- Avoids public disclosure of internal documents, financial data, trade secrets, or politically sensitive communications.
Control Over the Outcome
- Lets parties shape result rather than delegating the outcome to a judge or jury
- Can include operational changes, phased payments, land transfers, policy adjustments, or cooperative frameworks that courts may lack authority to impose.
Relationship Preservation
- Reduces adversarial escalation
- Facilitates future cooperation.
Reputational and Political Benefits
- Lower public exposure; less media coverage and political attention
- Resolves disputes quietly
- Avoids adverse precedent or findings.
Finality
- Reduced appeal risk
- Releases and waivers reduce likelihood of prolonged appeals
- Closure; parties can move forward without lingering legal uncertainty.
Strategic
- Avoids creating case law that could constrain future actions or invite copy-cat litigation.

Bottom Line

A settlement that avoids trial primarily delivers:

Lower cost
Lower risk
Greater certainty
Faster resolution
Greater control
Reduced public exposure

These advantages explain why the vast majority of civil disputes—reportedly well over 90%—resolve through settlement rather than trial, even when one side believes it has a strong legal case.

Bottom Line for Colony Ridge Activist

Maria Acevedo, a Colony Ridge land purchaser who has struggled for years to draw attention to the development’s sales and development issues, is happy about the potential settlement.

But not because of any money she might get. She said, “This settlement acknowledges the legitimacy of claims that go back years.” Acevedo sees it as vindication. “But it can never fix the damages,” she says. “No amount of money can ever replace the quality of life that was lost.”

While a final settlement has not yet been reached, thousands of Colony Ridge victims will likely see the settlement in a similar light – as a bittersweet Christmas present.

Colony Ridge ditch erosion — *Unprotected Colony Ridge ditch eroding into homeowners’ yards. Picture taken in 2023*

FM 1010 — *FM1010 washout caused by excessive, uncontrolled runoff from ditch above has not been fixed since Hurricane Harvey.* *The loss of this major north/south artery has caused major delays for Colony Ridge and surrounding residents for years.*

For More Information

For more information about life and loss in Colony Ridge, see a post I wrote called History of Heartbreak. It contains links to more than 75 posts about Colony Ridge. Those posts contain hundreds of photos showing conditions there.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/24/25

3039 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.

State Agency Responsible for Flood Mitigation Invests in Flood-Prone Development

12/22/25 – The Texas General Land Office (GLO), which manages state and federal money for flood mitigation, has invested an undisclosed sum of money in a flood-prone development at the confluence of Spring Creek, Cypress Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork. See below.

*From FEMA’s Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Brown = 500-year floodplain, Aqua = 100-year, Cross-hatched = Floodway. Map dated 2014.* *Floodplains will likely expand 50-100% in updated maps based on Atlas 14.*

On the surface, the GLO investment appears to be a conflict of interest. Dig deeper and two separate mandates for the GLO emerge that are not reconciled in state law:

To mitigate flooding
To help fund public schools.

The GLO home page trumpets how it manages $14.3 billion in disaster recovery and flood mitigation funds.

Simultaneously, the GLO’s website stresses how it manages $60 billion dollars in public school funds. But the investment funds strategic plan makes no mention of flooding. It does, however, say they seek “exceptional returns.” Developments in floodplains can provide those.

I gave multiple people in the GLO Press Office a chance to comment on this post before I published it. Not one replied.

Amount at Stake Could Be as High as $140 Million

A company called Ryko sold the 5,000+ acres in question to Scarborough Houston/San Jacinto Preserve earlier this year.

State Representative Steve Toth claimed in a press release on December 11, 2025, that he was working to revoke the state’s “$140 million investment” in the project by the GLO’s School Land Board.

However, Ryan Burkhardt, the president of Scarborough, told ReduceFlooding that Scarborough itself had close to $140 million invested in the project. He admitted the state was his partner, but refused to say how much the state invested.

Subsequent efforts to verify the GLO involvement in this project revealed that the School Land Board, a group within the GLO, invested in the property. However, the GLO refused to reveal the amount of the investment (and did not say that the investment had been revoked as Toth’s press release claimed).

GLO Statement Admits Involvement, But Sheds Little Light

The terse GLO statement below raises more questions than it answers.

“This investment was approved by the School Land Board (SLB) pursuant to Chapter 51 of the Texas Natural Resources Code (TNRC). The GLO’s investment in this project through the SLB as a limited partner was contingent upon Montgomery County’s approval of the drainage study, which was successfully completed in July 2025. As Land Commissioner, I am committed to preventing future flooding. We are meeting with stakeholders and have heard the local concerns regarding this project. Our agency is dedicated to serving the best interests of the community.” Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, M.D.

Conflicting Mandates

More exploration revealed that the GLO wears two hats. It simultaneously manages flood-mitigation programs and invests School Land Board capital – sometimes in flood-prone land – under conflicting statutory obligations and fiduciary standards.

Those functions report to the same elected official – Dawn Buckingham, M.D. They are:

Flood-Mitigation

Under various statutes and federal requirements, the GLO:

Administers U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant funds for Disaster Relief and Flood Mitigation (HUD CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT)
Manages large-scale flood mitigation and buyout programs
Works with local entities such as Harris County Flood Control District, to reduce flooding
Evaluates flood risk, vulnerability, and benefit-cost ratios.

In this role, the GLO must:

Reduce flood risk
Avoid repetitive loss
Comply with federal mitigation standards
Justify investments of tax dollars based on public safety and resilience.

School Finance

Separately, under the Texas Constitution and Natural Resources Code Chapter 51, the GLO (through the School Land Board) must:

Manage land and money as a trust
Maximize long-term returns
Avoid sacrificing value for unrelated policy goals.

The real conflict here may be competing, internal statutory silos.

Texas law reportedly does not require the GLO’s flood-mitigation knowledge, data, or policy goals to constrain its school-investment decisions.

There seems to be NO:

Statutory cross-check
Internal requirement preventing such conflict
Duty to reconcile flood-risk mitigation goals with land monetization.

The same agency can therefore:

Fund buyouts downstream while…
Profiting upstream from development pressure that increases downstream risk…

…without violating any explicit statute.

Three Potential Conflicts

From a governance perspective, this arrangement creates at least three tensions:

First, the GLO:

Possesses detailed flood-risk data in its mitigation role.
But it is not legally required to make investment decisions that consider that data.

Second, the State can:

Invest capital in flood-prone land at a discount
Benefit from development-driven appreciation
Later deploy flood-mitigation grants funded by taxpayers to address resulting impacts.

Third, the conflict creates the appearance of policy incoherence. The State appears to be:

Subsidizing flood risk on one side of the balance sheet
Funding mitigation on the other.

Why This Remains Legal

According to ChatGPT, this dual role persists because “the Texas Constitution elevates school-fund fiduciary duties to near-absolute status.”

Absent a statute saying, “School fund investments shall be consistent with state flood-mitigation objectives,” the GLO operates in parallel lanes and pursues investments with the highest rates of return.

Sadly, in this case, that includes property in floodplains undervalued upfront because of flood risk.

Where This Leaves the Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve Issue

The school-fund investment side of the GLO may not even understand the flood risk or recognize the political sensitivity. It likely focuses only on evaluating the land primarily as an undervalued trust asset.

This case makes a powerful example of conflicts of interest. However, I have another concern: transparency. Two state legislators and multiple residents have requested information about the state’s involvement with little luck.

Both Toth and State Representative Charles Cunningham have reached out to the GLO on behalf of downstream constituents. But so far, neither legislator has received an explanation.

Even worse, residents’ FOIA requests (going back to October) have been denied and appealed to the State Attorney General’s office, which denied them also. Three months of inquiry have resulted only in the one terse statement printed above.

This is an absolute PR disaster fraught with multiple potential conflicts of interest. The GLO is creating the appearance of a coverup even if none exists.
Bob Rehak

Need for Full Disclosure Now

The State and GLO should insist on full disclosure now. That includes any political contributions made by the land owners or sellers (directly, or indirectly through family members, employees or PACs) to state officials, especially those connected to the School Land Board.

According to the Texas Water Development Board’s most recent state flood plan, the number of Texans living in floodplains exceeds the population of 30 states. This investment illustrates one of the reasons.

We also need to verify whether the developer really received approval of its drainage impact analysis in July of 2025, as claimed in the GLO statement above. The so-called “approval” letter I have from the Montgomery County engineer dated July 2025 (when Ryko still owned the land) is best characterized as preliminary. It says, “Here are three pages of issues you need to address to get approval.” It does NOT give full, final approval.

One issue MoCo raises is adequate emergency access during 500-year, Atlas-14 flood events. But a Townsend Blvd. extension across Spring Creek was taken off Montgomery County’s 2025 road bond to help deter development of Scarborough’s property.

At this point, Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler, Harris County, State Representative Steve Toth, and City of Houston have all come out against this project because of the flood risk. But I have seen no official announcements from the Governor’s Office or the GLO about cancelling their support.

In my opinion, the only good investment in this land would be to turn it into a state park.

To continue backing this Scarborough deal may make better financial sense than public policy. As one public official told me, “Typical government…trying to fix problems it creates!”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/22/25

3037 Days since Hurricane Harvey