News Archives - Reduce Flooding

2018-Flood-Bond Update Illustrates Concerns of GLO, Lake Houston Area

6/12/26 – Dr. Tina Petersen’s final 2018-Flood-Bond update shows why she was under so much pressure to resign. Yesterday’s Commissioners Court agenda listed it as a “transmittal,” but it wasn’t transmitted. Nor was it posted on Harris County Flood Control District’s website as of this writing.

However, I have since obtained a copy of the 25-page spreadsheet with the help of Commissioner Ramsey’s staff.

Analysis reveals disturbing delays, slowness, contradictions, inaccuracies and incomplete data.

These were all among the list of failures that Texas Land Commissioner Dr. Dawn Buckingham complained about in regard to HCFCD. But the problems go far beyond GLO CDBG projects. The update shows how hundreds of other projects have fallen off HCFCD’s radar.

So Many Questions, Few Answers

I haven’t reviewed every project yet. But here are several from the Lake Houston Area that illustrate the problem.

Lake Houston Gates

The project to add gates to the Lake Houston Dam shows “Planning” as “complete.” But they have a blank entry for Engineering, which recently passed the 30% completion milestone. And they show no plans for construction. The county has paid only $23.5 thousand dollars out of the $20 million it pledged to the project.

Kingwood Diversion Ditch

HCFCD plans to start Kingwood Diversion Ditch improvements in mid-2030. The Diversion Ditch relieves flooding along Bens Branch and in Kingwood Town Center where more than a dozen people died during Harvey. So you would think it would merit higher priority.

Sedimentation and Sand Traps

In the Q1 2026-Flood-Bond Update, HCFCD says it is Closing projects related to sand traps and sedimentation in the upper San Jacinto River Basin, even though the projects are still “In-Progress.”

Dig deeper and you will find that HCFCD has paid its entire share of both studies to the SJRA to manage the projects…without getting any results yet. The final:

Sedimentation report is due to the Texas Water Development Board in less than a year, but SJRA has yet to publish a draft.
Sand-trap study is due in mid-2026, but the SJRA hasn’t published anything on that since 2022.

The SJRA sand trap study web page contains some hilarious entries. It shows:

“Contractor Notice to Proceed: TBD”
“Completion Date: TBD”
“Dates Subject to Change.”

Quick! Wake someone up. HCFCD seems to have lost interest in getting results for your tax dollars on these two studies.

Atascocita Flood Reduction Study

The Atascocita Flood Reduction Study shows “Planning” as complete and engineering as “Planned” But the project was “Paused” after only a third of the budget was spent. It fell into the bottom quartile of the Equity Prioritization Framework, scoring only 2.35 out of a potential 10.0. There’s $542K down the drain.

Tributaries East of Lake Houston

A study of San Jacinto Tributaries east of Lake Houston shows only $1 million out of $22 million has been spent to date. Engineering is “in progress” with construction planned for mid 2029. However, $0 has been spent on a preliminary engineering review so far. Where’d that first million go?

Crosby Eastgate Mitigation Bank

Engineering for the Crosby Eastgate Mitigation Bank on Cedar Bayou is still “In-Progress” and HCFCD plans construction for 2029. HCFCD’s website says it is a “wetlands restoration” project with a total budget of $1 million. But the bond update lists the budget at $1.75 million – a 75% increase.

Cedar Bayou Detention Basins/Channel Conveyance Improvements

More than a dozen regional detention basin projects and channel conveyance improvements along Cedar Bayou have been “paused.”

Danubina/East James Drainage Improvements on Cedar Bayou Tributary

HCFCD lists Engineering on the Danubina/East James Drainage Improvements as active. But only $1.7 of the $33.8 million budget has been spent so far. And flood control lists no estimated date for construction.

Little Cedar Bayou Drainage Improvements

Engineering is still “planned.” And HCFCD anticipates actual construction of drainage improvements may start in 2033.

Cedar Bayou Implementation Program

The Cedar Bayou Implementation Program is marked “closing.” But HCFCD lists planning as “in progress.” Is it just winding down? Are they planning to close it? Or with so many Cedar Bayou projects “paused,” has HCFCD just determined it to be a waste of time/money at this point?

Cedar Bayou Lynchburg Sub-Regional Detention Basin

Quick. Call the Keystone cops. The Cedar Bayou Lynchburg Sub-regional Detention Basin is marked “Complete” with engineering “in progress” and construction starting in 2031.

Luce Bayou Right of Way Acquisition and Floodplain Preservation

Luce Bayou’s Right of Way Acquisition and Floodplain Preservation program is “Closing,” having spent $0 to date – even as developers apply for permits to build in floodplains. Hmmmmm!

Summing Up

HCFCD originally conceived the 2018 flood bond as a ten year project. Yet 69 projects show construction starting beyond then. Today’s construction estimates will certainly prove inadequate by then.

Dozens of additional projects contain puzzling entries that warrant explanation. But HCFCD offers not one footnote.

Then there is the widespread pausing of projects because they don’t meet “equity” requirements. That penalizes the fastest growing parts of the county.

The examples above offer a taste of the type of information you can glean from the document. Dig in and explore projects in your watershed. You may actually find some pleasant surprises. I found one.

One Potential Opportunity Noted

HCFCD has spent less than a fifth of the budget allocated for dredging Lake Houston with the project marked “Complete.” However, more than $40 million remains that the new Lake Houston Dredging District could put to good use.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/12/26

3209 Days since Harvey

HCFCD did not return calls or emails concerning this study.

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.

HCFCD Executive Director Resigns Under Pressure

6/11/26 – Commissioner’s decided to take no action on the question of Dr. Tina Petersen’s continued employment as head of the Harris County Flood Control District. Again. However, after commissioners returned from executive session, she promptly resigned before the meeting was over.

Playing Dodgeball

Before the executive session, Petersen played dodgeball in the dock for 94 minutes re: her plan to avoid losing $322 million dollars in Federal funding. Here is a transcript of the discussion and a Powerpoint describing the plan. Judging by commissioners’ questions, her presentation/explanation was hard to understand.

Despite Petersen repeatedly refusing to give direct answers to questions about the plan, Commissioners Court approved it as the best available option to skirt an imminent deadline. Petersen never did address what would happen after the immediate deadline to another half billion dollars of federal funding with an early 2028 deadline.

But she avoided the elephant in the room – what she was doing, if anything, to speed up project execution. Instead she talked in vague terms about “acceleration strategies” that would yield tens of millions of dollars in savings which could be reinvested in additional projects. It all sounded a bit too good to be true given the dire situation.

Commissioners tried to pin her down on the savings, but with little success. What Petersen didn’t say was that the savings she promised likely came from a consultant she hired who radically overestimated construction costs.

Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia has been one of Petersen’s biggest fans. He reportedly recommended hiring her. He also defended her today. Garcia even offered a factually incorrect timeline in an attempt to rewrite history and support his protege. But thankfully County Judge Lina Hidalgo corrected him.

Petersen’s Resignation Announcement

After the executive session, Petersen announced her resignation in an email to employees. The letter enumerates what she believes her accomplishments were during her four and a half years in the office.

She called her work “transformational.” She also talked about:

“…tremendous strides toward becoming a more effective, accountable, and forward-looking agency.”
Her maintenance tax increase
“…staying on track with key milestones.”
Prioritizing “much needed transparency.”
“…accountability…”
“…leading the charge…”

Petersen just left out the part about endangering almost a billion dollars in federal funding.

I can’t speak to all of her claims. But “transparency” triggered a belly laugh.

Replacement Not Announced Today

At this hour, the major question is, “Who will replace Petersen?” Reportedly, the announcement will be made on June 25th at the next Business Court Meeting.

Another major question: Will voters re-elect Adrian Garcia? He got us in this mess. He also continued to defend Petersen long after it became clear she wasn’t achieving results.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/11/2026

3208 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.

City Approves Board Members for Lake Houston Dredging District

6/10/2026 – The City of Houston this morning approved the final board members for the Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District created by State Rep. Charles Cunningham’s HB1532 during the 2025 legislature.

The appointment of the five board members is a significant step. Three of the five are engineers/construction experts. The other two represent the Lake Houston Area Community.

L to R: Sarah Berkey, Kathleen Jordan, *City Council Member Fred Flickinger*, *Derek St. John, and William Simpson*, Board Chair. Not present: Ken Kirchhofer.

Why Have a Dredging District?

After Hurricane Harvey, the Army Corps found that the West Fork was 90% blocked with sediment in places. However, it was unclear how much of the sand was deposited by Harvey and how much had built up over time through lack of maintenance.

As a consequence the City and Harris County argued with FEMA for two years about how much of the dredging FEMA would fund. (Think in terms of someone who makes an insurance claim on a house that was already partially damaged.)

To eliminate such squabbles in the future and to protect the area from flooding, the Army Corps recommended that local authorities set up a permanent dredging district for maintenance purposes.

*West Fork south of the Kingwood Country Club’s Island Course after Harvey. Blockage contributed to catastrophic flooding in Humble and western half of Kingwood.*

west fork mouth bar before dredging — *West Fork mouth bar after Harvey and before dredging.*

East Fork Mouth Bar cost $18 million to dredge. — *East Fork Mouth Bar before dredging*

Local streams and drainage ditches were also blocked.

Rogers Gully Before Dredging — *Rogers Gully mouth bar in Atascocita* *before dredging*

River Grove Sand Bar — *This sand bar in the West Fork completely blocked the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and backed water up into thousands of homes during Harvey.*

And it wasn’t just sand. Thousands of trees also blocked the river and damaged the US59, UPRR, and West Lake Houston Parkway Bridges.

*UnionPacific Railroad Bridge after Harvey. Log dam raised water destroying railroad.*

When Did the Effort to Start the District Begin

Dan Huberty, the Lake Houston Area’s state rep at the time tried to get a dredging district started in the 2021 and 2023 legislatures. However, his bills encountered pushback over raising taxes or imposing fees to support operations.

Cunningham’s bill in 2025 focused on selling the spoils for beneficial uses such as raising foundations and roads, and building the Ike Dike. It passed and the governor signed it into law.

Who Are the Board Members?

William Simpson, Board Chair, worked around the world as a Project Manager on billion dollars projects for 38 years at Chevron Corporation . Then he became a professor in the construction department at Lone Star College. He now serves as the District Governor for Lion’s Clubs International.

Derek St. John PE, CFM is a professional engineer and certified floodplain manager, and one of the two founding members of Gauge Engineering, now a part of HR Green, Inc. He specializes in water resources and stormwater issues.

Sarah M. Berkey, PE, has worked with Carollo Engineers since 2014. She currently serves as Project Advisor/Technical Consultant on the Northeast Water Purification Plant Expansion Project.

Kathleen Todd Jordan is a 47 year resident of Kingwood and a community activist. She is a leader in the Kingwood Area Republican Women’s Club and served as a Republican precinct chair. She also worked for Insperity and as an early childhood educator.

Ken Kirchhofer is a member the Humble ISD School Board where he serves as chair of the Audit Committee. He also serves on the Building and Planning Committee and the Superintendent Evaluation Committee. Ken is a PGA Member, credited with reviving the Atascocita Golf Club. Humble ISD lost multiple facilities to flooding during Harvey.

What Comes Next?

City Council Member Fred Flickinger focused on some of the practical issues facing the board.

This will be like starting up a new business. What will be the financial model? Will dredging be outsourced or handled within Houston Public Works? What will the budget be? How will it be funded? Where will the spoils be dried? Can selling them generate enough income to support operations? How long before dredging starts? Who will staff the operation? Etc.

Flickinger said, “The sooner we can get the dredging done, the better.” With that in mind, Flickinger leans toward outsourcing rather than developing in-house solutions. “But it’s going to be a while before we come up with the best plan that works for everyone,” he added. “Today’s announcement isn’t the end of the journey, but it’s another step forward.”

State Rep. Charles Cunningham said this about today’s development. “Today, the members of the Lake Houston Dredging District were installed by the City of Houston. After years of work by others and myself, I am pleased to welcome these community members to the effort in seeking flooding remediation for the Lake Houston area.”

“I am confident,” he continued, “that they will be diligent in working toward solutions for all residents. The dredging district is one piece of a larger initiative to design sustainable and practical responses to our challenges. They will soon begin meeting and working on the issues. I thank them for stepping up to serve.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/10/2026

3207 Days since Hurricane Harvey

New Northpark Paving Now Stretches from One End of Project to Other

6/9/2026 – New Northpark paving now stretches from one end of the project to the other.

We aren’t anywhere close to a ribbon cutting yet. But we did reach a milestone of sorts in the expansion project to create the first all-weather evacuation route from Kingwood. Specifically, newly paved surface lanes now stretch from US59 past Russell-Palmer Road – including across the UnionPacific Railroad Tracks.

You can’t drive on them yet. But you should be able to within a couple weeks after UnionPacific finishes installing crossing gates and the City re-programs traffic lights.

All pictures below were taken on 6/9/2026.

Last Four Feet Paved this Week

In the picture below, note the asphalt strips adjacent to the railroad where newly paved surface lanes cross the tracks.

*Once new crossing and traffic signals become active, traffic can be rerouted to new surface lanes.*

Not all the concrete work is done yet. A left-turn lane in front of the dry cleaners at Loop 494 still needs to be finished. And some cross-Northpark culverts still need to be installed in the center where the old lanes are now.

*Wider shot shows culverts, turn lane and utility work remaining at Northpark/Loop 494/UPRR.*

Contractors also still have some work to do on sidewalks/multi-purpose pathways, especially where streetlights are in the way.

*Note how path on left stops just beyond tracks.*

UnionPacific has scheduled June 23, 2026, to install the crossing gates and co-ordinate traffic signals.

East Abutment Being Paved

Farther east, contractors have started paving the east abutment for the bridge which will eventually cross the tracks and Loop 494.

*New paving and rebar being installed on eastern abutment.*

*Contractors were also busy today installing caps for the walls that will hold guardrails for the bridge.*

Medians and Entry Ponds Coming Together

Beyond the abutment, a combination of sod and grass has been planted in the median between in/and outbound lanes. Thanks to recent rains, it is already starting to turn take root and green up.

*Newly planted grass in medians begins to give you a sense of how project will look when complete.*

At US59, excavation of the north entry pond looks complete. However, contractors still have work to do on the south pond.

*Looking E from over US59. N on left. S on right.*

Heavy rains last week appear to have slowed down work on the ponds. As you can see, the north pond is still holding a significant amount of stormwater.

For More Information

Use the keyword “Northpark” to review more than 200 previous posts about the expansion project. Also consult the LakeHouston Redevelopment Authority project pages.

The Authority will hold a board meeting this Thursday at the Kingwood Community Center on 6/11/26 starting at 8am. The address: 4102 Rustic Woods Drive, Kingwood, Texas 77345.

Here is the agenda. And here is the 36-megabyte board packet.

Harper Brothers Construction projects a completion date for the project of January 7, 2027, just seven months from now. You can expect to see a lot of activity on the bridge in coming weeks and months.

The drainage analysis for the new Regional Detention Basin (Project T-1015) is also nearing completion.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/9/2026

3206 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Showdown Over Slowdown at HCFCD

6/8/2026 – In their 6/11/2026 meeting, Harris County Commissioners will revisit the future employment of Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) Executive Director Dr. Tina Petersen, PhD, PE. The immediate issue: slippage of 11 CDBG-DR projects that could cost the county $322 million if they miss their deadlines on February 28, 2027.

Roughly 84% of the time for those has elapsed with less than 4% of their budgets expended.
GLO Data as of 6/3/26

Despite deadlines only a little more than eight months away, the projects typically take 1-2 years to construct.

HCFCD also expects to miss deadlines on 13 of 18 CDBG Mitigation Projects (CDBG-MIT) worth another $362.7 million dollars. But that deadline is 3/31/28.

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE has sounded the alarm for months about this problem. So, has the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which administers HUD funds in Texas.

Predictably, the parties involved are offering their own versions of how we reached this point. Dueling press releases today differed starkly.

The GLO says HCFCD promised it “shovel-ready” projects.

On the other hand, HCFCD calls them “complex, large-scale flood risk reduction projects under strict federal timelines, evolving program requirements, construction market pressures, and funding structures that were not originally designed for this level of accelerated delivery.”

Unusual 5-Part GLO Press Release

The GLO issued a five-part press release, unusual in its detail. There was:

The press release itself
An open letter to Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo
Photographs of 11 projects supposedly under construction, only three of which were actually moving dirt.
Timeline of critical events during the life of the CDBG-DR Program (the one with the most pressing deadline).
A list of “Failures” by HCFCD.

The GLO press release summarized the letter to Hidalgo. It quoted GLO Commissioner Dawn Buckingham as saying Harris County needed “Shovels, Not Scapegoats.”

The press release also said that, “We have grave concerns about Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) not meeting its benchmarks…” It went on to say that if the county didn’t change its business processes…

“…there is likely zero chance of successfully meeting the grant timeline established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.”
Dawn Buckingham, GLO Commissioner

Buckingham stated that the GLO spent more than $5 million of its own grant funding to teach HCFCD about grant requirements and provide technical support with grant applications. The GLO claims its team conducted more than 750 meetings “to provide staff support to Harris County to ensure these projects are completed on time in accordance with the federal deadline, yet there are still too few shovels in the ground.”

Commissioner Buckingham concludes her letter by saying, “It’s time to … finish the job. Shovels, not scapegoats.”

Click here for the:

Later in the day, GLO also provided an update on reimbursable expenditures to date associated with CDBG-DR and MIT projects.

Page 15 of 18 shows that with roughly 84% of time elapsed, HCFCD has spent only about 3.9% of available DR funds.

Page 11 of 18 shows that HCFCD has spent only 4.4% of available MIT funds.

HCFCD Paints Rosy Picture Despite Obstacles

The GLO press release this morning emphasized that in 2023 projects were supposed to have been shovel ready. HCFCD’s press release this afternoon never mentions “shovel ready.” Instead it paints a nightmare picture of impossible complexity before claiming it has, ta da, a “plan” to solve the problem.

HCFCD will unveil its new “plan” to commissioners on Thursday. According to HCFCD, it “protects federal funding, maintains and strengthens our commitment to communities, and ensures residents receive the flood risk reduction benefits these programs were designed to deliver.”

HCFCD had planned a press conference tomorrow to explain the plan to reporters, but cancelled it late today.

Proposed Solution

While details of the plan have not yet been divulged, in principle, GLO and HCFCD agree on the following outline. It involves:

1) Putting all CDBG-DR and -MIT projects in one giant “budget bucket,” including some funds still at Harris County Housing and Community Development.

2) Billing everything possible from that giant bucket against the DR budget before the 2/28/27 deadline.

3) Billing the rest against the MIT budget, which has a 3/31/28 deadline.

This approach at least kicks the can down the road past the next election. However, Buckingham cautions that the 2/28/27 deadline is firm. Without taking a position on Petersen’s employment, GLO does warn that HCFCD and the County need to move much faster.

Thursday’s Decision on Petersen

GLO’s list of Harris County “failures” is unambiguous. Ramsey can elaborate on them at length and provide examples. Despite extensive support provided by GLO, they include:

Missed deadlines
Reprioritizing projects repeatedly
Submitting incomplete or inaccurate documentation that failed to adhere to federal grant regulations
Failing to respond to GLO requests regarding federal grant processes
Significant employee turnover and loss of experienced staff capacity
Failure to achieve timely engineering design, environmental clearance, procurement, vendor contracting and construction starts…

HCFCD’s own spending data shows that its slowdown cuts across project phases, types of projects, and funding sources. The graph below shows all 2018 bond spending. You can see that problems go far beyond CDBG, GLO and HUD.

The downturn you see coincides with Petersen’s appointment to manage HCFCD.

HCFCD 2026 Q1 spending — *HCFCD spending over time. Petersen took over in 2022* *after Democrats started pushing out the previous management team in 2021.*

Changing Horses in Midstream

Petersen supporters argue that it could be dangerous to change horses in midstream, especially now that the immediate crisis seems to be solved with the “one big bucket” plan.

But her opponents argue that staying with the status quo carries the larger risk. They argue that poor performance during a crisis may be a reason for change, not a reason against it.

In my opinion, the real question is not whether you’re midstream, but whether the current horse is still the best one to get you across.

Fox26’s Greg Groogan interviewed GLO commissioner Dr. Dawn Buckingham. After recounting a litany of concerns about HCFCD’s performance under Petersen, he asked, “Commissioner, you are … a Doctor. This patient looks sick. Is that a fair assessment?”

Buckingham answered, “This patient is in the middle of a code and about to die.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/8/2026 and updated with Fox link on 6/9/26

3205 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.

Editorial: “Me vs. We” in Scarborough Development Debate

6/7/2026 – Much of human history comes down to balancing the rights of individuals vs. those of society as a whole. Said another way, where do we draw the line when considering “Me vs. We?”

The proposed Scarborough Development, backed by the State of Texas General Land Office, in the floodplains of Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, Turkey Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork makes a good example.

Confluence Spring Creek and West Fork after heavy rains — *Flood-prone* *Scarborough property lies inside the V at the confluence of Spring Creek (l) and San Jacinto West Fork (r).*

Should a developer have the ability to build on its own property? Even if altering the floodplain will endanger the lives of future homeowners, first responders, and people in surrounding areas? And what if you, the taxpayer, are asked to mitigate that risk in the future? That’s the Me vs. We debate. What’s good for one isn’t always good for the majority.

Me vs. We in American Life

The Me vs. We debate permeates almost every aspect of American life. For instance, we give up some of our freedom as individuals when we:

Marry and raise a family
Obey laws
Choose to live in a city
Join the Armed Forces
Take a job with a company
Go through airport security
Stop at a red light.

In America, the “Me vs. We debate” divides conservatives from liberals and Red states from Blue on most contentious issues

After 250 years, we still haven’t figured out where to draw that line – at least not universally. We just let people and companies shop for jurisdictions compatible with their own self-interest. Want conservative? Move to Texas. Want to hedge your bets? Move to Harris County.

Different Jurisdictions, Different Philosophies

Want to file a lawsuit against the EPA or against polluters? Shop for a court friendly to your point of view.

Should a company be allowed to build on cheap, floodplain property likely to destroy homes and lives? That is the debate with Scarborough. The company stands to make immense profits if it can secure development permits for its 5,300-acre property.

Against that backdrop, lies the safety and security of hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom remain blissfully ignorant of the developing threat upstream.

Engineers using mathematical models estimate the probability of becoming a victim due to alterations they propose to the floodplain. But, in the end, they are highly paid consultants trying to prove the viability of their recommendations to clients.

The public rarely has the knowledge or money to challenge their findings. The public must rely on elected representatives to protect them, the same representatives who receive immense campaign contributions from the engineering companies and their clients.

The High Cost of Failure

If the engineers get it wrong, which they often do, you, the taxpayer, not the developer, will pick up the tab.

If engineers always got it right, American government(s) wouldn’t spend $40–70 billion per year on disaster relief and flood mitigation.

And the shame of it is that floodplain preservation is almost always cheaper than flood mitigation and disaster recovery…by a huge margin.

The proposed Scarborough development is almost half as large as Kingwood. And almost all of it is in floodplains or floodways.

*FEMA’s estimated feet above dry land for 100- and 500-year floods in the Scarborough area shown above.*

Houston and Harris County have already passed unanimous resolutions against developing the Scarborough land. But it’s in Montgomery County, which has less stringent flood regulations.

Regardless, concerned Montgomery County residents have started a petition against the development.

Please join them by signing the petition today.
Change.org

Ask everyone you know to sign it, too. Help protect your home and family.

This is an election year. Let’s make elections painful for the people pushing this development. The best time to stop a problem is before it starts.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/7/2026

3204 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.

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.”

Floodplains Streams from Ryko Drainage Study — *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.

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).

Major funding announced for Cypress Creek Detention Project by Crenshaw, Harless, Ramsey and Petersen — *Petersen press conference in 2023 announcing funding availability for East TC Jester CDBG-DR project*

*TC 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.

Other related items include:

#383 Transmittal of the 5/18/26 CDBG status update
#384 Update on 2018 Flood Bond projects

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.

*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.

Northpark expansion — *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

HCFCD Moving Dirt for Woodridge Village Detention Basin!

6/3/26 – Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) contractor Brice Construction started moving dirt this week on the Woodridge Village Detention Basin, which is part of a larger project to widen, deepen, and line Taylor Gully.

Harris County Commissioners approved Brice’s $29.4 million contract in their March 31, 2026 meeting.

History of Project

Up to 600 homes in Kingwood’s Elm Grove, Mills Branch, North Kingwood Forest and Woodstream Village subdivisions flooded twice in 2019 during storms in May and September. They flooded from runoff from Woodridge, which had been clearcut for development and sloped toward Taylor Gully.

The flooding resulted in a large, class-action lawsuit against Perry Homes and its subsidiaries. Perry was trying to build a new subdivision just north of the Montgomery County line on approximately 270 acres. Unfortunately, they didn’t get the stormwater detention basins built before heavy rains came.

Subsequently, Harris County and the City of Houston bought the property to a) keep it from being developed and b) use it for flood mitigation. Montgomery County detention requirements at the time were 40% lower than Harris County’s.

In January 2022, HCFCD started an E&R project (Excavation & Removal) on the southern portion of the property. Purpose: to get a “head start” on construction by letting contractors excavate dirt and sell it on the open market at market rates. They simply confine their efforts within the rough outlines of where HCFCD knows they will eventually build a detention basin.

Sprint Sand & Clay removed approximately 100 acre feet (160,000 cubic yards) before the end of 2023. That’s when HCFCD applied for a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) via the Texas General Land Office to finish the project. However, the basin was never fully excavated. Nor was it finished and connected to other drainage on the site.

Construction had to stop during the grant-application process. But now it has finally started again.

Contractors spent several days starting 5/19/26 cleaning up the site. Yesterday, drone footage showed they were finally moving dirt again after a 2.5 year pause. They had also knocked down a small grove of trees near what will become the eastern end of the detention basin. See the before/after photos below.

Photos Taken May 8, 2026, Before Re-start of Construction

Woodridge Village and Taylor Gully before construction start — *Woodridge Village and Taylor Gully before construction restart. Note drain pipe left by previous contractor and small grove of trees in top center.*

Photos Taken June 2, 2026, After Re-start of Construction

Woodridge Taylor Gully Construction — *Contractors crushed and piled all the storm drain pipe, then began grading the steep, eroded edges of the hole left by Sprint Sand & Clay.*

Construction Schematic and Plans

*The trees were at the eastern end of Compartment 1. Compartment 2 is not part of this contract.*

Compartment 1 is designed as wet-bottom and expected to provide approximately 412 acre-feet of stormwater storage capacity—that is roughly the equivalent of 412 football fields covered in one foot of water. And that’s more than four times the amount excavated by Sprint. See construction plans below.

Brice’s construction contract is for approximately $29.4 million.

Construction of Compartment 2 will be part of phase 2 and is anticipated to provide an additional 715 acre-feet of stormwater storage capacity. Completion of Compartment 2 is dependent on future funding.

Phase I Project Funding

The grant application for this project was approved to receive up to $41.9 million through the Community Development Block Grant – Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) program, provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and administered by the Texas General Land Office.

The project is receiving $8.35 million in funding from the Environmental Protection Agency and federal Community Project Funding. Congressman Dan Crenshaw secured that.

The project is receiving $10 million in funding from the Texas Water Development Board in partnership with the City of Houston.

Construction of Compartment 2 will be part of phase 2 and is anticipated to provide an additional 715 acre-feet of stormwater storage capacity. Completion of Compartment 2 is dependent on future funding.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/3/26

3200 Days since Hurricane Harvey