11/6/25 – Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger has scheduled another round of Median Madness for November 15. The focus this time will be a stretch of Northpark near the Kroger at the intersection with West Lake Houston Parkway.
Median Madness events not only beautify Kingwood medians, they improve traffic safety by improving visibility and removing roadway incursions.
The November 15 event will make up for one last May that had to be rescheduled because of rain.
How to Sign Up
Flickinger invites residents to join in continuing these efforts to keep District E beautiful. Those interested in volunteering can contact the District E office at districte@houstontx.gov to get involved.
Said Flickinger, “Your teamwork and commitment continue to make a tremendous impact on our community medians and the overall appearance of our city.”
Thank You to All Supporters
Flickinger also thanked the Houston Police Department, Houston Parks and Recreation Department, the Houston Toolbank, Council Member Julian Ramirez and generous sponsors for helping to make this upcoming event a success in the spirit of past events.
Sponsors for this event include Chick-Fil-A, Trees for Kingwood and Houston Parks and Recreation.
Read more about the community’s efforts and see photos from the last event here:
Please bring water, gloves, and shears. And wear closed-toed shoes. All ages are welcome, but those under 16 should be accompanied by an adult.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/6/25
2991 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/20251106-Screenshot-2025-11-06-at-8.23.03-PM.jpg?fit=1100%2C700&ssl=17001100adminadmin2025-11-06 20:28:152025-11-06 20:31:46Save the Date: Median Madness Round 4 Scheduled for November 15
11/5/25 – From ground level, a driver may not see all the progress being made on the first all-weather evacuation route from Kingwood. But from the air, it’s unmistakable. One can clearly see the pieces of the final Northpark project coming together.
In the last week, contractors have:
Prepped and/or paved a mile of new inbound lanes on Northpark
Framed out most of the first junction box that will convey stormwater from one side of the UPRR tracks to another
Began prepping the second junction box.
Extended sidewalks on the south side of Northpark between Loop 494 and 59.
Below are pictures taken on Monday, 11/3/25 that show the state of the massive project.
Prep and Paving of Inbound Lanes
Looking east from the entry ponds at US59, note the sidewalks going in on the right. Contractors are bending the path to save a giant live oak tree by the Exxon station.
Looking east from the entry ponds at US59 on 11/3/25. Note sidewalk swerving to save tree. Closeup below.Closer shot of men routing the sidewalk around the live oak in front of the Exxon Station.
Also note below that contractors have removed all the old concrete from the southernmost lanes (right of center) and have begun paving new lanes from Whataburger to US59.
Reverse angle. Looking SW at the same area.
On the other side of Loop 494, there’s even more progress. Note the new lanes stretching east from Loop 494 most of the way to Russell Palmer Road.
Looking east from over Loop 494. Note new paving (right) in front of a new subdivision which will be called the Northpark Enclave.
A little farther east, contractors have laid an asphalt base that stretches for several more blocks. Concrete will soon follow.
Note the base for new paving on the right.
Also note above the gentle outward curve of the road on both sides. This is where surface roads will split to make room for the bridge over the tracks and Loop 494.
Junction Boxes by Loop 494
Contractors are in the process of forming two cast-in-place junction boxes on either side of the UPRR tracks that parallel Loop 494.
They finished two bores under the tracks in October. Now, they are creating the junction boxes, one on either side of the tracks. Together, will help convey stormwater to the Kingwood Diversion Ditch.
All this work is taking place under ground and is invisible from the road.
Looking down at the rebar that will reinforce the walls of the western pit between Loop 494 and the tracks.Work is just starting on the eastern junction box in front of Self-U-Storage.
Sidewalks between US59 and Loop 494
Looking west and people working on sidewalk near Exxon Station.Wider shot shows the south sidewalk will soon stretch all the way to US59.
Next Steps
Ralph De Leon, the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority project manager for the Northpark expansion project, says the next steps will be:
Opening up all the westbound lanes between Loop 494 and US59
Opening up all the eastbound lanes on both sides of Loop 494
Finishing the driveways on the outbound side of Northpark east from the Kingwood Diversion Ditch.
In the meantime, pack your patience. And focus on how nicely this will all work when complete.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/5/25
2090 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/20251103-DJI_20251103142117_0357_D-1.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-11-05 15:59:412025-11-05 16:11:22Northpark Update: Building Blocks Falling into Place
11/4/2025 – FEMA floodplain maps contradict a claim made by Scarborough Development/San Jacinto Preserve in a presentation made to the City of Houston and Harris County officials on 10/29/25.
The developer recently bought 5,316 acres, mostly in the floodplains and floodways of Spring and Cypress Creeks, and the San Jacinto West Fork. The land lies in both Montgomery County and the City of Houston’s extra territorial jurisdiction. The developer also wants to build a bridge into Harris County.
However, superimposing their development plan on FEMA’s current floodplain maps developed before Atlas 14 contradicts that claim. Why?
The extent of proposed development matches the limits of pre-, not post-, Atlas 14 100-year floodplains.
Net: developing in this area is more dangerous than it may look. 500-year floodplains could soon become 100-year floodplains.
For more detail, see the discussion of Atlas-14’s history and the sequence of maps below.
A Brief History of Atlas 14
FEMA’s current floodplain maps for this area date to 2014, four years BEFORE the start of Atlas 14 in Texas. And to my knowledge, FEMA has not yet released new flood maps based on Atlas 14 for this region.
NOAA began updating rainfall precipitation frequency estimates in 2004; they called the effort “Atlas 14.” But NOAA didn’t update Texasstatistics until 2018. Such rainfall estimates form the basis for flood maps.
In Montgomery County (MoCo), pre/post estimates for the standard 100-year/24-hour rainfall varied by more than a third. MoCo adopted Atlas 14 values of ~16.1 inches for the 24-hr, 1% storm (at Conroe), up from the previous standard of ~12 inches. That’s an increase of 4.1 inches or 34%.
Also consider that Montgomery County has been one of the fastest growing counties in the region and in America. Its population has grown by almost a third (31%) since 2018. That population growth comes with a growth of impervious cover (roofs, driveways, streets, parking lots, etc.) that doesn’t soak up rainfall.
I’m not aware of any recent studies that show the cumulative impact of additional rainfall and impervious cover together with a deficit of detention.
Given those issues, common sense says flood elevations would increase. And in fact, preliminary guidance from Harris County indicates that floodplains will expand by 50% to 100% when FEMA releases updated flood maps based on Atlas 14.
New Plans Show Development Extending to Old 100-Year Floodplain
When I first saw the developer’s new plans, the plans didn’t seem to match the claim that they would only develop land “at or above the Atlas 14 100-year floodplain.” That made me suspicious. So, I performed an experiment.
I superimposed the developer’s plans over FEMA’s current (pre-Atlas 14) map dated 2014. I then varied the opacity of the layers in Adobe Photoshop so I could see how the two matched up. Long story short, they matched perfectly. See the sequence of images below.
Layer 1: From FEMA’s Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Scarborough property is in center between Spring Creek (diagonal) and West Fork (right). Brown areas = 500-year floodplain. Aqua = 100-year. Striped = floodway.
Next, I superimposed the development plan that Scarborough presented to City of Houston and Harris County.
Layer 2: Gray areas with waffle pattern represent claimed “net developable area.”Red = property boundary.
Then, I varied the opacity of the development plan until you could see the floodplains behind it.
Composite with partial transparency of overlay
Enlargement clearly shows thatdevelopment stops at the old, pre-Atlas-14, 100-year floodplain.
White lines from 2014 FEMA map form boundary between 100- and 500-year floodplains. And waffle patterns from developer’s plans stop at white lines.
New maps reflecting higher rainfall rates and more impervious cover will likely show those white lines cutting well into the brown so-called developable areas, if not eliminating some altogether.
Where Did Developer’s Claim Come From?
So, where did the developer’s Atlas 14 claim come from? I have talked to three people who were in the meeting. Not one could tell me with certainty. They all expressed reservations and doubts about it.
I have also reached out to Scarborough several times to understand their position, but they have yet to return phone calls or emails.
So, I’m going to remain skeptical until I see proof of their claim and FEMA’s new Atlas 14 maps. FEMA may release them in 2026. But the proposed maps will then go through public comment and revision cycles. That could mean they won’t become official for at least another three years.
Make This An Election Issue
In my opinion, the best use for this property would be to turn it into a state park. That would help protect areas both up and downstream. With an election coming up next year, our representatives will have their ears to the ground. The time to start a letter-writing campaign is now. Contact all candidates.
Turn this into an election issue.
Make sure we elect someone who is more interested in protecting public safety than private profits.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/4/25
2989 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/20251103-CU-of-Southern-Area.jpg?fit=1100%2C561&ssl=15611100adminadmin2025-11-04 12:01:042025-11-04 14:53:30Floodplain Maps for 5,316 Acres West of Kingwood Contradict Developer’s Claim
11/2/25 – Hurricane Melissa disappeared off the tracking charts yesterday. And when it did, one of the most powerful storms in recorded history went into the history books.
Many things made Melissa unusual and stunned meteorologists. They included the storm’s deep pressure, high winds, rapid intensification, death toll, destruction, and its timing within the hurricane season.
And all of that happened in a season that has, so far, spared the U.S. mainland from any landfalling hurricanes.
A Normal Season
Usually, the Atlantic Hurricane season is largely over by the end of October.
One tropical storm, but no hurricanes have hit the US mainland so far this year.
In May this year, NOAA predicted an above average season with 13-19 named storms, of which 6-10 would become hurricanes, including 3-5 major hurricanes.
So far, we’ve had 13 named storms. Five became hurricanes, four of which reached major hurricane strength. See below.
Why So Strong, So Late?
First, we had very warm waters in the Caribbean – 1.9ºC to 2.8ºC above average for the region and season. That’s up to 5º F warmer than average.
More importantly: the warm layer extended to depth — meaning the storm could churn up deeper water without encountering cooler up-welled water that normally weakens storms.
Second, reduced wind sheer and steering currents caused it to meander slowly. This helped it sit over very warm waters while enhancing its strength.
Melissa underwent two rounds of rapid intensification, including a gain of ~70 mph in 24 hours — an “extreme rapid intensification” event. Because water was abnormally warm for that late in the season, and other inhibiting factors were low, the conditions aligned for a major hurricane even though the calendar was later.
Sea surface temperatures ordinarily decline and atmospheric conditions become less favorable this late in the season. But not this year. So, Melissa could reach peak strength even in late October. Some scientists hypothesize that climate change may have played a role. Others believe it was just the random confluence of favorable factors.
Warm water is necessary but not sufficient to create a major hurricane. In this case, the atmosphere cooperated, which is part of why Melissa could intensify so late and so rapidly.
Typically by late October, conditions become less favorable for hurricane formation (cooler oceans, increasing shear, etc.).
ABC News reported that at least two hurricane-hunter aircraft had to turn back from Hurricane Melissa due to extreme turbulence: one from the U.S. Air Force Reserve 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron and another from NOAA.
Melissa’s Eye. U.S. Air Force photo by Lt. Col. Mark Withee on Oct. 27, 2025.
Melissa made landfall in Jamaica with sustained winds of 185 mph, tying it for the strongest Atlantic hurricane landfall by wind speed. (Wikipedia+4AP News+4CBS News+4).
A scientist from the University of Miami onboard the Hurricane Hunter recorded a spot wind gust of 252 MPH. If verified, it will be the highest speed ever recorded in a tropical cyclone by a dropsonde. That rivals winds in EF5 tornadoes!
Melissa also recorded a central pressure of 892 mb, tying the record for third‐lowest minimum central pressure in the Atlantic basin. (CT Insider+1).
So far, Melissa is the strongest tropical cyclone of any kind worldwide in 2025.
USA Today reported today that the storm left more than 60 people dead in Haiti, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/2/25
2987 Days since Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/20251102-Melissas-Eye.jpg?fit=1100%2C818&ssl=18181100adminadmin2025-11-02 20:30:042025-11-02 20:30:05How Could Hurricane Melissa Get So Strong So Late in the Season?
11/1/2025 – On 10/28/25, members of the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force received a brief presentation about how flood-mitigation projects get prioritized by Harris County.
Below are several key slides from “Overview & History of the 2018 Bond Program’s Prioritization Framework.”
How Prioritization Started
Before the 2018 bond election on the anniversary of Hurricane Harvey, language was inserted into the proposal that voters went on to approve. Specifically, note Paragraph 14G. It called for developing a process for the “equitable expenditure of funds.”
Another year later, the county (under the guise of Harris Thrives) adopted two resolutions. The first instructed Harris County Flood Control District to adopt a framework for the equitable expenditure of Bond Program funds. The second set up a community-based Task Force.
“Harris Thrives” is the name of a resilience strategy adopted by Harris County after Harvey. It claims to be a “fast, fair, smart” approach to flood control, but also includes housing. Specifically it claims the county will be:
Fast: Cutting through red tape to complete flood-control projects quickly.
Fair: Prioritizing projects to help the most people as efficiently as possible, while ensuring vulnerable communities are never left behind.
Smart: Relying on science, technology, and data as a guide to be more proactive about how mitigation, preparation, and recovery.
Broad: Including programs for housing recovery, emergency preparedness, and community engagement.
Admirable goals. But it appears that Harris Thrives’ website has not been updated since February 2023, despite a promise to update it quarterly at that time. Only history and the Freedom of Information Act will tell us whether the county achieved those goals.
How Prioritization Framework Evolved
The Framework has gone through several iterations over time as commissioners’ priorities have changed.
After Harvey, the focus was speed.
Two years later, the focus was prioritizing certain projects and de-emphasizing others.
Five years later, the focus became tweaking the framework to ensure dollars went where commissioners wanted.
Six years later, commissioners asked HCFCD to rank projects already initiated into quartiles to ensure pet projects could be fully funded.
Eight years later, it became clear there wasn’t enough money to do all the projects promised in the flood bond. So commissioners voted to focus on projects in the top quartile.
Under previous management, HCFCD updated the status of every project for every commissioners court meeting. And those updates were posted online.
But since a change in management and priorities in 2022, it has been hard to identify where projects, budgets, and construction stands. Bond updates became annual as projects slowed to a crawl.
The old, simple-but-effective text-based lists with GANTT charts have been replaced by a series of somewhat confusing dashboards that work occasionally and with mixed effectiveness in different browsers.
Clicking on the dots calls up information about the associated project. But gone are the old, intuitive Gantt charts that gave you timing, lifecycle, and status information at a glance.
Sigh. At least they’re trying. And in fairness, they are improving. The Microsoft PowerBI spending charts on the HCFCD Activity Page are a valuable addition, even though that information is updated quarterly.
Changing Priorities
Through the years, priorities changed. The presentation showed the current scoring matrix.
2022 scoring matrix
However, it did not show the scoring matrix in the original 2019 Prioritization Framework. See below.
2019 scoring matrix
Comparison shows that flood-risk reduction and partnership funding (combined weight of 35%) have been eliminated from consideration. In their place, population and housing density (aka project efficiency) have increased by a similar amount. That favors projects near the city center, but eliminates severity of flooding as a consideration, which is why the largest watershed in the county with the worst flooding has received only 2% of spending to date.
Eliminating partnership funding is a curious switch, too, especially since more than half of bond-project funding relies on matching partnership dollars.
Search on the tag “equity prioritization” in the search bar of this website.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/1/25
2986 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Prioritization-Priorities-scaled.png?fit=2560%2C1401&ssl=114012560adminadmin2025-11-01 16:22:312025-11-01 16:22:32Evolution of Harris County Flood-Project Prioritization
They told Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey and Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger that they had “letters of no objection” (LONOs) from the Montgomery County Engineer and Harris County Flood Control District. See the red box on the page below.
LONO stands for Letter of No Objection.
The phrasing of the text implies “approval.” However, reading the text of the actual letters suggests that huge concerns remain about the project.
“…additional analysis will be required incorporating a definitive land plan.”
Brian Clark, PE, Montgomery County Engineer
Clark goes on to say that the land plan must be approved before any construction for any portion of the development can be approved. In addition, he says that additional analysis and construction plans must address Montgomery County’s following concerns:
Significant potential for erosion under homes, roads, utilities and bridge(s)
Need for emergency access and rescue planning during floods
Potential for increased floodplain levels due to future upstream development, which could place the entire project in the 100-year floodplain. “This creates a high risk of future flood blight, negatively impacting the tax base and endangering future residents,” he said.
Page 2 contains a lengthy list of information still required:
Detailed drainage master plan including specific lot, street, and detention pond sizing and locations.
Master plan that includes a comprehensive, no-rise, floodplain analysis for the 5-, 10-, 100- and 500-year Atlas 14 peak flows, along with drawings that show proposed grading and the extent of floodplain encroachment.
Atlas-14, 500-year water elevations in all models
Adequate mitigation for any fill in the 100-year floodplain
Develop and implement robust erosion control measures and geotechnical studies to ensure the long-term stability of the development
Design bridge and road network to guarantee adequate emergency access during the Atlas-14, 500-year storm
Analyze the proposed bridge location and describe how the proposed bridge will accommodate the dynamic (shifting) nature of Spring Creek
Emergency access plans must be approved by the county before any plans for sections in the subdivision will be reviewed
Submit documents indicating Army Corps approval, including any mitigation the Corps requires
Complete environmental due diligence documentation pertaining to Endangered Species Act
Approval of bridge plans by Harris County Flood Control District showing no modification to the main stem of Spring Creek will be required before MoCo provides any future letters of no objection.
Pages 2 and 3 contain cautions about:
Data and calculations made in the preliminary drainage analysis
A conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) must be approved by FEMA before the county can approve bridge construction plans
The limited nature of the LONO itself.
The letter closes with a warning:
“This memorandum does not guarantee that the ‘developable areas’ presented in the report will remain unchanged as more information becomes available.”
Brian Clark, PE, Montgomery County Engineer
That sounds like quite a mountain to climb! Especially since MoCo Precinct 3 Commissioner Rich Wheeler took the Townsen Blvd. Extension off the County’s 2025 Road Bond. Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE, also vehemently opposes a bridge across Spring Creek. And the area upstream from this development is one of the fastest growing in the region…and the country, according to the Census Bureau.
Photos Make A More Compelling Case than Engineering Studies
Having spent years now studying how upstream development changes downstream assumptions about flooding, I hope this area does not get developed. Significant public safety concerns exist.
We should never forget what happened to Kingwood and Humble, and the I-69 and UnionPacific Railroad Bridges during Harvey.
Even if Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve could build a bridge across Spring Creek, it would not form a reliable evacuation route in the event of another Harvey. Why? People coming south could be in floodwaters over their heads once they got off the bridge. See the pictures below.
Another view of Harvey at I-69. The Spring Creek bridge would come down in the flood, out of frame to the right.Water at this location reached 22 feet above flood stage.Townsen Road in Humble (center) where it crosses I-69. Photo courtesy of Harris County Flood Control District.I-69 during Harvey. Photo by Melinda Ray. So much for evacuation routes to the south.It took TXDoT almost a year to repair the I-69 bridge causing massive traffic jams on alternate routes.Harvey also destroyed the UnionPacific railroad bridge over the West Fork.
Even the I-45 and West Lake Houston Parkway bridges were damaged.
So, in my opinion, there is NO reliable evacuation route to the south. Period. End of story.
The developer can save his money on the engineering studies and cut his losses. The only way to salvage anything from this disaster-in-the-making is to donate the land to Texas Parks and Wildlife, take a tax deduction, and trumpet your concern for the environment.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/31/25
2985 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/2021/05/TS-Harvey-8-30-17-209.jpg?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=17681024adminadmin2025-10-31 17:53:272025-11-01 12:36:21Supposed “Letter of No Objection” to Floodplain Development Lists 3 Pages of Objections
10/30/25 – San Jacinto Preserve (aka Scarborough Development) presented new plans yesterday to the City of Houston District E Council Member Fred Flickinger and Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE, for the development of 5,316 acres most of which is in floodplains or floodways. The land lies where Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, Turkey Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork converge south of the Grand Parkway.
Meeting in Response to City’s Request for More Information
Council Member Flickinger and Commissioner Ramsey both had requested the City Planning Commission to defer approval of the new development by taking it off their consent agenda on 10/16/25 until the City could learn more.
General plan submitted to Houston Planning Commission didn’t show much detail.
In response, the District E office said the developer presented these two pages at the followup meeting on 10/29/25.
The first looks somewhat like a paisley shirt. The new plans show where homes and detention basins would be built, but they omit floodplain/floodway boundaries, streets and wetlands.
Note that the new plan still shows a proposed corridor for Townsen Road, which was taken off the Montgomery County 2025 Road Bond. It also shows a bridge across Spring Creek which Commissioner Ramsey previously (and strenuously) objected to.
The developer also presented the following summary sheet, designed to allay concerns. It says that out of the total 5,316 acres, only 2,012 are “intended” for development. 550 acres are set aside for detention and floodplain mitigation. And 2,754 acres are not “intended” for development – 52% of the total tract. See the pie chart below. Then compare the percentages to the map above.
My eye sees less green than gray in the map above. But the irregular shapes make it difficult to precisely quantify percentages. So, judge for yourself.
Troubling, Vague Language
The developer also presented this summary sheet along with the new plans.
Note that the Summary Sheet above uses words such as “intended,” “proposed,” and “limited.” They should raise red flags. They convey promises without legal obligations and beg for explanation that isn’t given.
But there may be an even bigger problem in the Summary Sheet. The developer claims it’s using updated flood maps. However, they don’t show the extent of floodplains and floodways. Nor do they show the difference between the existing and as-yet-unreleased new maps.
And note the reference to “wetlands mitigation credits.” That means they’re mitigating the wetlands they destroy, but doing it somewhere else, i.e., not on this site. So the mitigation may or may not help people in Humble, Kingwood and the Lake Houston Area. It all depends on where the credits are.
LONO References Demand Elaboration
The “LONO” references in the Summary Sheet stand for Letters of No Objection. They imply approval but mean something entirely different.
“LONO” is a formal statement issued by a regulatory authority to indicate that it has no objection to a proposed action, activity, or project — provided certain conditions are met and no specific approval is required under existing rules.
For instance, Harris County Flood Control District issued the LONO for a bridge across Spring Creek without seeing any plans. Such letters serve as an assurance during the early stages of a project that the regulator does not see a regulatory barrier. However, the letter does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance with other requirements or liabilities that may arise.
I have not yet obtained a copy of the Montgomery County LONO, but have filed a FOIA request.
Much Green Space Could Not Be Developed Anyway
While the “52% green space” claim sounds like a concession to preservation and safety concerns, City of Houston regulations already prohibit building in floodplains and floodways without significant restrictions. And this land is almost ALL floodways and floodplains.
Floodplains shown by Ryko (the previous owner) in their drainage analysis.
Restrictions include:
Elevation of the first finished floor 2 feet above the 500-year flood elevation
Construction on stilts/piers to allow water to flow under the home without constricting the flow of water
A floodplain development permit
Flood insurance.
Such restrictions raise the price of building in such areas while lowering the demand, making development – and home ownership – much riskier.
From FEMA’s Base Flood Elevation Viewer.
At the southern end of the area, builders would have to raise homes 27.1 feet to comply with City of Houston regulations…if they could get a permit.
“Like Aiming a Fire Hose at Kingwood”
One of the most respected hydrologists in the region told ReduceFlooding.com that if that area got developed, it would be like “aiming a fire hose at Kingwood and Humble.”
But the letter objecting to the study’s conclusions was later rescinded after it came under fire from MoCo Precinct 3 Commissioner James Noack. Noack was subsequently voted out of office by his constituents. The letter cited a “sincere concern for the safety of the public.” The risk of development was just too high, it said.
Leading Preservation Group Has Better Plan
The Bayou Land Conservancy, one of the leading conservation groups in the area, issued the following statement today after reviewing the plans above.
“Bayou Land Conservancy believes that the highest and best use of this entire tract is conservation that protects upstream and downstream communities from flooding, while preserving the quality of our drinking water.”
“Although the developer currently plans to set aside 52% of the available land with ‘no future plans of development,’ conservation easements would act as permanent protection of those areas and give the nearby community an assurance that they would remain green space forever.”
I couldn’t agree more. Just a mile downstream on the San Jacinto West Fork, townhomes in Forest Cove were flooded to the third floor. And some were swept off their foundations.
Forest Cove Townhome destroyed by Harveyone mile downstream from proposed developmenton West Fork.
Rather than make the public pay handsomely to buy out such properties after they flood, why not just keep the area natural?
The entire proposed development is laced with wetlands which act as natural sponges during floods.Proposed development photographed from a helicopter flying over the West Fork on 6/22/25.
All those trees create friction that reduces the speed of floodwaters coming into the Humble/Kingwood area. Removing them would increase the velocity of floodwaters that have already swept homes off their foundations.
Leaving this land natural would avoid future home damages and mitigation costs altogether. At a much lower cost to the public and unsuspecting home buyers.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/30/25
2984 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/San-Jacinto-Preserve-Plan-2.jpg?fit=2550%2C1650&ssl=116502550adminadmin2025-10-30 20:02:482025-10-31 13:17:24New Plans to Develop 5,316 Acres West of Kingwood Mostly in Floodplains, Floodways
10/29/25 – Contractors have begun placing rebar and pouring concrete for two giant, cast-in-place junction boxes on either side of the UnionPacific Railroad tracks that cross Northpark Drive. The junction boxes will connect drainage systems on both sides of the tracks.
Construction Roadblocks Eliminated
Unanticipated utility conflicts held up drainage work for months. And the drainage work needs to be completed before Loop 494 can be completed, Northpark surface lanes can be paved, and contractors can start work on the bridge over the tracks/Loop 494. So this is another significant milestone.
Once complete, the junction boxes will comprise a significant link that conveys excess stormwater from west of the tracks to the Kingwood Diversion Ditch on the east.
Pictures Supplied by Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority
The pictures below show the start of work in the first of the two pits.
Clean out of debris from the twin 5′ bores in anticipation of construction of the junction boxes.Contractors start with the bottoms. Then they will build the sides and top.Picture: 10/28/29.Smoothing the concrete and placing anchors for the sides.10/28/29
The Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority anticipates completion of the boxes on both sides of the tracks by the end of the first week in November 2025, weather permitting.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/29/25
2983 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251029-Smoothing-Concrete-Junction-Box.png?fit=1063%2C1100&ssl=111001063adminadmin2025-10-29 21:21:022025-10-29 21:21:03Contractors Start Northpark Junction Boxes Next to Railroad Tracks
10/28/25 – Yilun Cheng and Matt Zdun, reporters for the Houston Chronicle, published an article this morning about the political donations of floodplain developers. It represents a new high-water mark in investigative journalism concerning Houston’s flooding problems.
Cheng and Zdun found $10.8 million in contributions from development interests to county judges and commissioners in Harris and Montgomery counties for the decade between January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2024. That works out to roughly a million dollars per year contributed to 10 people.
The article’s headline: “How officials approved tens of thousands of homes in Houston floodplains: ‘1,000 ways to rig the model.'” Their story’s preview link gives us a hint: “In Houston-area floodplain development, political donations beat science.”
The thrust of the article is how development interests have:
Influenced the very regulations that govern the industry
Tweaked model inputs to make developments look more desirable and their impacts less severe
Made huge political contributions to those who influence approval of their plans.
65,000 Homes built in Houston Floodplains since Harvey
Cheng previously published a blockbuster story about 65,000 homes built in Houston floodplains since Hurricane Harvey. Today, she delved into how that happened. She and her colleagues tracked the political donations of developers, homebuilders, engineers and their respective Political Action Committees (PACs) and trade associations.
For today’s article Cheng and Zdun focused mainly on Harris and Montgomery Counties, though Cheng interviewed people from the other surrounding counties and cities as well.
Research Challenges and Ensuring Data Quality
Such research is more difficult than it appears at first glance. Contributions often don’t appear under the name of a corporation on a government contract.
Rather, contributions often appear under the names of the corporation’s leaders, employees, and their family members. That adds extra layers of research and verification.
And multiple donations from the same individuals may appear in different forms. For instance, an individual might use his full name for one donation and a first initial for the next. That discourages automatic sorting.
So, Cheng and Zdun had to review contributions one by one. “Campaign finance filings vary greatly in quality,” they noted at the end of the article. “The same donor could be represented several different ways in filings, with different spellings, suffixes, titles and punctuation. Additionally, some county officials submitted handwritten filings, which complicated the data parsing.” Accidental? I think not.
The Chronicle standardized names across filings, removing extraneous suffixes, titles and punctuation through a process that involved substantial hand checking.
Then the reporters cross-checked all name matches with occupation and address data to verify that they were the same individual. They also sorted entries by date because during the sampling period, some politicians also ran for offices other than county judge or commissioner.
From my own experience with such research, I suspect the totals they reported may be understated. The rule of thumb? When it doubt, leave it out.
Contributions Don’t Automatically Guarantee Plan Approval
Cheng and Zdun are careful to point out that political contributions don’t automatically guarantee approval of developers plans. But they also point out situations in which contributions to a county commissioner mysteriously made it difficult for county employees to reject a developer’s plans/studies.
For instance, they explored a floodplain development by Ryko in Montgomery County and found that a county employee’s rejection of the developer’s plans was later escalated to a former commissioner. The employee was formally reprimanded. Coincidentally, the developer’s consultant (and former employee) currently chairs the Houston Planning Commission.
In a hundred year flood, some of Ryko’s land would be more than 18 feet underwater in a 100 year flood.
Cheng interviewed Dr. Sam Brody of Texas A&M. He said, “All the models done are based on assumptions, and the assumptions are based on what they think,” Brody said. “There are 1,000 ways to rig the model to come up with an answer that you want to see.”
Cheng also interviewed Chad Berginnis, director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers. Berginnis said he has experienced firsthand how politics can complicate efforts to enforce floodplain rules. “I tried to faithfully administer the regulations,” he said, recalling his time as a local floodplain manager. “And I can tell you on more than one occasion I suffered the county commissioners’ anger.”
I personally know a floodplain manager in Montgomery County who labored under similar pressure and eventually left the county.
Part of a Larger Series
Cheng is a talented writer/reporter with a penchant for meticulous documentation. Today’s article is part of a larger series exploring flooding in the Houston region and Texas in general. I will say this. When the next big flood destroys thousands of homes, people need look no further than Cheng’s articles for answers.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/28/2025
2982 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/20250507-Ryko-Confluence-BFE-Viewer-25-ft-1.jpg?fit=1100%2C633&ssl=16331100adminadmin2025-10-28 20:15:112025-10-28 20:15:58Chronicle Tracks County Political Donations of Floodplain Developers
Yet whether you look at total dollars spent or construction dollars, the 2% figure remains.
San Jacinto Watershed Receives Less than $5 Million Per Year in 5 of 8 Years
According to the most recent figures available from Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD), the county has spent $2,071.59 million ($2+ billion) in total since passage of the flood bond in 2018. Yet the San Jacinto watershed has received only $43.65 million of that – 2.11%.
And of the $948.38 million spent on construction since Bond passage, the San Jacinto watershed has received only $19.65 million – 2.07%. See the breakdown by years below:
Data for both graphs sourced from HCFCD Activity Page. *Includes 1 Quarter. **Includes 3 Quarters.
So, whether you look at total or construction spending, the San Jacinto watershed has received less than $5 million per year in five of the last eight years.
So Much for Worst First!
To put those numbers in perspective, compare the size of the watershed to the size of the spending.
The portion of the San Jacinto watershed inside Harris County ranks it as the largest watershed in the county. But that is the smallest portion of the watershed.Compiled from HCFCD data above.
The County sold the flood bond to voters by saying it would fix the worst areas first. However, that has not been the case.
Shortly after voters approved flood bond language that guaranteed an “equitable distribution of funds,” the County adopted an “Equity Prioritization Framework” that eliminated flood damage and flood risk in the allocation of dollars. Linguists and historians may be interested in reviewing accepted definitions of equity and equitable in Websters Third International and Oxford English Dictionaries. The words sound alike, but are not the same.
Some Other Watersheds Have Received Even Less
But as bad as this is for the San Jacinto watershed, consider other watersheds that have gotten even less.
In my opinion, the issue with flood-control spending to date is not just slowness, it’s also fairness.
We’ll have a chance to fix that next year. Primary elections for county commissioners and county judge begin in March 2026. And the general election is in November 2026.
We have another hurricane season to get through before then. Don’t count on another as mild as this one.
Posted by Bob Rehak on October 27, 2025
2981 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-27-at-5.04.28-PM.png?fit=1502%2C894&ssl=18941502adminadmin2025-10-27 17:44:042025-10-27 17:57:58San Jacinto Watershed Received Only 2% of Mitigation Dollars since Passage of Flood Bond
