1/30/26 – A four-million dollar earmark secured by U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw for widening the Walnut Lane Bridge in Kingwood saved the entire $44 Million Kingwood Diversion Ditch Project from being killed by the Democratic members of Harris County Commissioners Court.
U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw gives the thumbs up to the Walnut Lane Bridge project. Widening the bridge is necessary to widen the Kingwood Diversion Ditch (background) which will also help reduce flood risk along Bens Branch.
At the time, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE warned that killing projects in Quartiles 2, 3 and 4 could have dire unintended consequences. The Diversion Ditch project fell into Quartile 3.
After the Democrats saw how much partnership funding they would lose by killing projects in the lower quartiles, they relented. In their next meeting, they voted to exempt projects in the lower quartiles that already had partnership funds committed.
That breathed new life into the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project because it included widening of the Walnut Lane Bridge which Crenshaw had already secured funding for.
Multiple Benefits: A Texas Twofer
But the project will benefit far more of Kingwood than just the people who live in Diversion Ditch floodplains. It will also benefit people who live near Bens Branch. That includes the Villages of Bear Branch, Kings Forest, Hunters Ridge, Town Center, Kings Harbor and Kingwood Greens.
That’s because widening the Diversion Ditch will take excess stormwater out of Bens Branch and allow water to move safely down the Diversion Ditch. The planned improvements will take Bens Branch from a 2-year level of service to a 100-year level.
Kingwood Diversion Ditch in white, new outfall in green, and Bens Branch in red.
That means homes in the Bens Branch floodplains should be safe in anything up to a 100-year storm. Currently, the stream is at risk of flooding parts of its watershed every two years.
When the Diversion Ditch project is completed, Crenshaw will have helped protect people and property values in approximately half of Kingwood.
Bob Rehak
Crenshaw Support Crucial on Other Projects, Too
The Kingwood Area Drainage analysis found that, based on the number of people who benefit, the Diversion Ditch project is one of the two most important in Kingwood. Another is the Taylor Gully/Woodridge Project which Crenshaw also secured funding for.
Editorial Comment: I interviewed Crenshaw in 2018 when he first ran for Congress and have followed his work in Washington ever since. The man is a warrior, scholar and leader. He fights tirelessly to improve the lives of his constituents. He studies issues. And thoughtfully and patiently explains them. There’s no way he could have known what Commissioners Court would do in 2025 when he proposed the Walnut Lane Bridge funding in 2023. Regardless, his proactive effort will improve the safety of tens of thousands of his constituents.
Two Houston groups – the Northeast Action Collective and Texas Housers – claimed the GLO ignored Houston and Harris County in the distribution of the first tranche of Harvey aid. Houston and Harris County got $0 from the first $1 billion. But the Northeast Action Collective and Texas Housers ignored the fact that ALL of the next $750 million went to Harris County.
Moreover, the GLO announced the $750 million a full month BEFORE the two groups filed their discrimination complaint in 2021.
GLO Cleared
The investigation began on June 25, 2021. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity found that “no reasonable cause exists to believe the GLO has violated the Fair Housing Act, Title VI, or the Housing and Community Development Act through its administration of the 2019 CDBG-MIT funds, including the Hurricane Harvey State Mitigation Competition.”
Complainant Allegations
Complainants alleged discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, and that scoring criteria systematically and deliberately advantaged white communities while disadvantaging low- and moderate income (LMI) African-American and Hispanic communities.
GLO Defense
Looking only at the first billion dollars, GLO presented evidence that roughly 1.2 million of the 1.5 million Texans who benefited from the approved projects were Hispanic, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, or Native American. The GLO also showed that 100% of the awards went to projects in majority LMI areas.
GLO also argued that complainants could not look only at one portion of the grants. Or look only at the first round of Harvey Grants and ignore 2015 and 2016 grants.
Findings
HUD found that the GLO substantially exceeded HUD’s requirement to direct at least 50% of funds to Most Impacted and Distressed (MID) areas. In 2015, 2016 and the first round of Harvey, GLO directed roughly 60% of all HUD funds to MID areas.
GLO later cancelled the second round of Harvey competition and allocated $750 million exclusively to Harris County. The County’s population is 42.9% Hispanic and 18.6% Black – a total of 61.5%. With other minorities, that brought minority beneficiaries for all phases to more than 66%.
Location of HUD/GLO projects in Harris County as of 2024.
Thus the complainants failed to show a disproportionate impact on minorities. Northeast Action Collective and Housers failed to assess the share of total beneficiaries that were black, white or Hispanic compared to the racial demographics of eligible areas.
Even when looking at just Round One of the Harvey competition, “no reasonable cause exists to believe the GLO’s administration had a disparate racial impact on funding.”
The complainants focused on Houston and Harris County not winning any awards during the Harvey Round One competition. Another section of the 22-page legal brief deals with why. To a large degree, not winning any awards in Round One resulted from the Benefit/Cost Analyses of submitted projects. Smaller jurisdictions just had lower costs per beneficiary. (See page 13.)
For instance, one project submitted by the City would have benefitted fewer than 10,000 people, but cost $94 million. In other words, the City was seeking 18% of Round One funds to benefit less than a half-percent of the City’s population.
HUD determined that “Houston’s poor performance in the Harvey Competition is attributable, at least in part, to its expensive, low-impact project proposals.”
Conclusion
“The facts of this case do not suggest that GLO intentionally discriminated against any racial or ethnic group through its administration of the CDBG-MIT funds,” said the final ruling.
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/2024/10/20241015-CDBG.jpg?fit=1100%2C643&ssl=16431100adminadmin2026-01-29 20:30:112026-02-03 09:38:49HUD Clears GLO of Discrimination in Distribution of Harvey-Mitigation Funds
1/28/26 – People living near the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and the Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully area have been asking what happened to their flood-mitigation projects. Good news: Both are moving forward. Here’s some historical context, where the projects currently stand, and what comes next.
Kingwood Diversion Ditch
The Kingwood Diversion Ditch splits off Bens Branch between Northpark Drive and the new St. Martha Catholic Church. It runs down the western side of North and South Woodland Hills past the fire station on Kingwood Drive. Then it continues south past Trailwood, Deer Ridge Park and finally joins the San Jacinto West Fork at River Grove Park. Along the way, it goes under four bridges.
Neel-Schaffer completed a preliminary engineering study in early 2025. The company recommended widening the Diversion Ditch and building a new outfall to West Fork west of River Grove Park. They projected the cost to be almost $41 million, but it would reduce the floodplain size by 177 acres and remove 34 structures from the floodplain.
Diversion Ditch shown in white, proposed new outfall in green, and Bens Branch in red.
The improvements would divert enough stormwater from Bens Branch to take it from a 2-year level of service to a 100-year level. That’s good news for the merchants in Kingwood Town Center. They all flooded during Harvey and 12 seniors died at Kingwood Village Estates.
The project almost died last year when Democratic County Commissioners voted to redeploy all remaining flood bond funds to the highest scoring projects on their equity prioritization framework. However, they later reconsidered that motion. The Diversion Ditch already had federal partnership funds allocated to it thanks to the work of Congressman Dan Crenshaw. His earmark for the Walnut Lane Bridge saved it from the chopping block.
Now the project is moving again. In late 2025, Harris County awarded a contract to Halff Associates, Inc. for the final engineering and design of the project.
In its January 22 board meeting, the Texas Water Development Board authorized an agreement with Harris County Flood Control District for a $5 million grant that State Representative Charles Cunningham obtained during the 89th Legislative Regular Session. (See item 12.)
HCFCD spokesperson Emily Woodell said the District expects the design work to start by March 1. She also says that additional funding will come from EPA grants to cover design and the 2018 bond to cover construction. Woodell expects construction to begin in late 2027.
Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully
The Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis ranked the Diversion Ditch and the Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully Project as the two most important projects in Kingwood because they help the largest numbers of people.
The 270-acre Woodridge Village Project is the aborted Perry Homes development purchased by Harris County and the City of Houston in 2020. It lies north of Sherwood Trails and Elm Grove in Montgomery County. Except for a few acres on the extreme western end, virtually all of it drains into Taylor Gully.
Perry’s contractors clearcut the Woodridge site starting in 2017 and sloped it toward Taylor Gully. Then before they installed detention ponds and drainage systems, runoff from the site flooded up to 600 homes twice in 2019. Residents had not even finished repairing their homes from the first flood in May, when they flooded again in September. A massive class action lawsuit resulted in a substantial settlement for the victims.
Taylor Gully flooding near Rustling Elms on May 7, 2019.
Before purchasing Woodridge Village from Perry, HCFCD stipulated that they had to finish building all of the stormwater detention basins planned as part of the buildout. However, those detention basins only brought the property up to pre-Atlas 14 standards. They fell 40% short of Atlas 14 requirements.
Shortly after the purchase, HCFCD started building an additional detention basin to bring the total detention capacity onsite up to and beyond Atlas-14 requirements. Sprint Sand and Clay began the work under an excavation and removal (E&R) contract. E&R contracts give HCFCD a head start on production. They let contractors begin removing dirt for a nominal fee and then sell it on the open market to make up their profit margin.
Woodridge Village on May 31 2025. The beginning of a new detention basin was never completed or connected.
However, when HCFCD applied for a HUD CDBG-MIT grant through the Texas General Land Office, HCFCD was forced to pause the project. That’s because projects cannot change while the GLO and HUD consider a grant request.
Scope of project outlined in preliminary engineering review. Compartment 1 is in current bid and will take project up to and slightly beyond Atlas 14 requirements. Compartment 2 will be treated as a separate project in the future if/when needed.
Expand a portion of Taylor Gully and line it with concrete.
Build another stormwater detention basin on Woodridge Village holding 412 acre-feet.
Replace the culverts at Rustling Elms with a clear-span bridge.
Fast forward: GLO and HUD approved grants for $42 million in October, 2025. HCFCD put the project out for bids. And proposals are due by Feb. 16, 2026. See screen capture from County purchasing below.
Screen capture supplied by Precinct 3 Engineer Eric Heppen
Even though the bid above is listed as “channel conveyance improvements,” according to Woodell, it also includes the Woodridge Village Stormwater Detention Basin(s). “Since Woodridge mitigates Taylor Gully, those two projects have been combined forever after,” she said.
The HUD/GLO deadline for finishing the project is March 31, 2028. That’s do-able if everyone hustles.
Additional funding for this project came from U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw. He secured federal funding for Taylor Gully improvements in March 2022. And Representative Charles Cunningham helped secure state funding through the TWDB.
At a September 2024 press conference where Woodridge meets Taylor Gully. Left to Right, Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE, US Rep. Dan Crenshaw, HCFCD Exec. Dir. Dr. Tina Petersen, Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger and State Rep. Charles Cunningham.
More news to follow when we see the bids.
Posted by Bob Rehak on January 28, 2026
3074 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Kingwood-Flood-Mit.jpg?fit=1100%2C670&ssl=16701100adminadmin2026-01-28 14:44:172026-01-28 17:05:33Update on Two Kingwood Flood-Mitigation Projects
1/27/26 – Are you having trouble researching the flood risk of a home? Yours or perhaps one you are considering buying? Worried that your flood risk may have increased over time? If so, the Houston Chronicle wants to hear from you.
During Harvey, 154,170 homes in Harris County alone flooded. That was an estimated 9- to 12-percent of all the structures in the county. See page 13 of HCFCD’s final Harvey Report.
Of the 154,170 homes that flooded, 48,850 were within the 1% (100-yr) floodplain, 34,970 within the .2% (500-yr) floodplain, and 70,370 were outside of any floodplain – almost halfthe total of those within floodplains.
That troubling percentage prompted a re-examination of floodplain assumptions and flood risk after Harvey. The result was a massive effort by Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) to update flood maps. But 8.5 years later, after repeated delays, new maps still haven’t been released. Compare the two timelines below.
2020 screen capture from MAAPnext.org showing release of preliminary maps in early 2022.Screen captured on 1/27/26.Note also the new narrative about “FEMA is leading the process” in lower right.
And that’s one way you get 65,000 homes sold in floodplains since Harvey. But those are only the floodplains that we know about. That number could easily increase when new maps showing the expanded floodplains are released.
Has Uncertainty Affected Your Flood Risk?
That uncertainty, coupled with the constant need to build, buy or sell homes, could be laying the groundwork for the next natural disaster. The uncertainty makes it difficult to assess a home’s true flood risk and determine whether that’s a risk you’re willing to take.
Are you uninsured? Underinsured? Could you afford flood insurance on top of a mortgage if you suddenly found yourself in a floodplain? Could you afford a total loss if you flooded without insurance?
“Many homeowners don’t learn their property is in a high-risk area until after they purchase it,” said Cheng. “Repeated delays in the release of new flood maps have exacerbated that problem.”
“We’re looking to speak with residents across the Houston metro area, including Harris, Montgomery, Fort Bend, Galveston and other nearby counties. Your story could help others understand the risks and may be featured in our reporting,” says Cheng.
The Chronicle questionnaire has about a half dozen short, factual questions that should take no more than five minutes to answer. Please help. You do not need to subscribe to the Chronicle to participate in the survey.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/27/26
3073 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Flood-Map-Update-Timetable.png?fit=1182%2C847&ssl=18471182adminadmin2026-01-27 16:02:042026-01-27 20:41:44Trouble Researching Flood Risk of a Home?
1/26/26 – Progressives are wrong to critique local leaders for working across the political aisle on flooding: an Op-ed about partisanship originally published in the Houston Chronicle Opinion Section.
Houston Mayor John Whitmire (l) with Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey coordinating first responders after severe flooding in Kingwood. (Personal image substituted for copyrighted Chronicle image.)
For eight years, I have hosted the website ReduceFlooding.com, which focuses on the need to reduce flooding in Houston. Pretty straightforward.
This also means I spend plenty of time interacting with government officials at all levels.
People form governments to solve the big problems that individuals can’t. That is especially true for local governments. Municipalities provide police and fire protection, build and maintain water and sewer systems, manage garbage, repair streets and do all of the critical and unglamorous work of making a city run. That includes flood mitigation.
Recently, however, partisans have been politicizing local governments by insisting elected officials become involved with issues over which they have little, if any, control. They confuse virtue with partisan purity.
Here in Houston, the most notable examples are the progressive attacks on Mayor John Whitmire.
I have followed the Chronicle’s coverage of extremists within the mayor’s own Democratic Party. They criticize him for not adequately towing the party line. My understanding is that his cardinal sin was attending a fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Republican.
I fail to see the sin in working across the partisan divide to improve the lives of Houstonians. I have no problem with our mayor attending any event for any elected official of either party if it will help us get the critical funding that Houston needs to improve infrastructure and control flooding. Floodwater does not discriminate based on party affiliation. It destroys the homes and lives of Democrats and Republicans alike.
Before Whitmire was first elected mayor, he asked me to educate him about local flood issues in Kingwood. Then he asked me to set up meetings with flood victims and community leaders so he could learn firsthand about their needs. It didn’t matter whether they were Republicans or Democrats — they were human beings who needed help.
For the partisan extremists, however, purity is more important than solving citizen’s everyday problems. Their mantra has become “Whose colors are you wearing?” Blind obedience to the political party is more important than working together toward common goals that make communities better places to live.
And it’s about more than campaign events.
For instance, on a cold and blustery Saturday morning earlier this month, I saw a refreshing example of what it looks like when local politicians put partisan purity aside: Whitmire himself working shoulder to shoulder with more than a hundred volunteers to improve public safety in Kingwood. For this lifelong Democrat, it didn’t matter that Kingwood is Republican-friendly territory. What mattered was coming together to solve the problem of runaway vines taking over the median of Kingwood Drive. The vines were choking trees, spilling into the roadway, crowding traffic, limiting visibility, and creating a public safety hazard.
Kingwood residents have long recognized the vines as a nuisance. They dodge them every day on their way to and from work. To help control them, District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger has organized a series of trim-fests called “Median Madness.”
Vines had become especially troublesome in front of Kingwood High School – home to thousands of inexperienced teenage drivers. So, on that Saturday morning, more than a hundred volunteers showed up for “Median Madness: Round 5” to attack the vines in front of the high school. Most of the volunteers were students from the high school itself.
No one wore a red shirt or a blue shirt. No clothing shouted political slogans. Everyone came with work gloves and work boots. To make their community a better, safer, more beautiful place to live and work. For the benefit of everyone — regardless of political affiliation.
And when the camera crews left and the press was finished covering the Median Madness event, the mayor didn’t leave with them. He stayed to help clear the vines and improve traffic safety — in blue jeans and work boots with lopping shears – like everyone else.
Like I said: critical and unglamorous work.
In doing so, Whitmire set an example of what public service should be. He put politics aside and worked with residents for the good of the community – young and old, male and female, Democrats and Republicans. He communicated an unspoken message about the importance of public service for scores of high school students.
I have seen this practice repeatedly with Whitmire. He focuses on issues that actually improve residents’ lives. He sees past the debilitating, divisive national dialog undermining trust in government. Even if it means toiling in miserable weather for hours on a Saturday morning.
In the end, our steady 76-year-old mayor taught everyone at Median Madness perhaps the most important lesson of all without saying it outright. He showed that we have more to gain by working together than fighting each other. Public safety requires cooperation not competition. And that’s a pretty important lesson.
It’s a lesson the progressive activists in Whitmire’s own party still need to learn.
Bob Rehak is the host of ReduceFlooding.com and Precinct 3 representative to the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/26/26
3072 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/20240503-RJR_3404.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2026-01-26 15:59:312026-01-26 15:59:32Natural Disasters Don’t Care About Partisanship. Neither Does Mayor Whitmire.
1/25/26 – One in every five Texans lives in a floodplain, according to the first Texas State Flood Plan. We have the second highest number of repetitive loss properties in the country, according to the Insurance Journal. And 30 states have populations smaller than the number of people living in Texas floodplains.
The number of floodplain dwellers in the San Jacinto watershed alone exceeds the entire populations of 15 states and the District of Columbia. And it’s not all because of rainfall, flat land, or our proximity to the Gulf. Government secrecy compounds those issues.
Purpose of FOIA and TPIA
While governments at all levels pay lip service to transparency, the reality can be quite different. Journalists and concerned citizens frequently have their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) requests denied. Usually, the denials occur when they might embarrass someone in government. Yet that’s exactly why those two acts were passed decades ago. And that’s why we need to rededicate ourselves to openness.
State, County, Municipal Examples
Let me give you three recent examples.
Scarborough Land West of Kingwood
A Dallas-based company called Scarborough bought 5,300 acres at the confluence of Spring, Cypress and Turkey Creeks where they join the San Jacinto West Fork. Virtually all the land is in floodplains or floodways. The developer says the State of Texas is his partner.
Land purchased by Scarborough last year. All but the dark gray areas within the red are in floodplains or the floodway.
The Texas School Land Board invested an undisclosed amount of money for undisclosed terms in the development of the property.
The state has rebuffed attempts to discover why it is investing in the development of such dangerous property.
The Texas General Land Office oversees the School Land Board but has refused to clarify media requests and repeatedly appealed FOIA requests to Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton keeps finding reasons to avoid compliance with the spirit of the law.
The state even refused a request from a Texas representative. They demanded the lawmaker sign a non-disclosure agreement. The lawmaker found it so onerous, he said he refused to sign it.
Paxton has announced his intention to run for the U.S. Senate. And Dawn Buckingham, GLO Commissioner is running for re-election.
Harris County Flood Maps
The term “caveat emptor” (buyer beware) goes back 2,000 years to Roman times and became firmly embedded in English Common Law during the Middle Ages.
For people to know whether they’re buying land in a floodplain, they need access to current flood maps based on the best available information. But 8.5 years after Hurricane Harvey, Harris County Flood Control District has not released updated flood maps – effectively keeping buyers in the dark about their flood risk.
HCFCD has repeatedly ignored media requests for the new flood maps. The cover story is that their contract with FEMA prohibits release of the flood maps before FEMA vets them. But the County refuses to produce the contract. And other counties throughout Texas routinely publish “draft” maps, with the understanding that they are subject to revision by FEMA.
Romerica Land in Kingwood
Several years ago, Romerica bought more than 300 acres between Kingwood Lake and the San Jacinto West Fork. Virtually all of it lies in floodplains or floodways.
Yet the company has persisted in trying to develop it.
First, they wanted to build 25- to 50-story high rises around a marina that would hold boats too big to float on the West Fork.
Then, they wanted to build luxury homes on stilts, even though homes built on 25 foot stilts had already flooded.
Recently, they announced plans to build a 500,000 square foot, two-hotel complex surrounded by 125 luxury, 8,600 square foot villas.
Even though the most recent plan is on Romerica’s highest ground, the swampland still floods badly and repeatedly.
Location of Romerica’s proposed new development in May of 2024
When Sylvester Turner was Mayor, he reportedly instructed Public Works not to approve any building permits for the property. Turner had personally seen how badly that area flooded.
But now Houston Public Works has approved a preliminary drainage survey for the two hotels (including a Fairmont) and 125 massive villas.
Refusing my FOIA request was hilarious. In their letter to the AG, an assistant City Attorney cited information I didn’t even request to enhance her chances of keeping the study secret. Public Works even refused to supply a copy of the drainage analysis to Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger.
I have obtained similar drainage studies from Harris, Montgomery and Liberty Counties without such objections.
Illusion of Transparency
Usually, when people have nothing to hide, they quickly volunteer information. When they withhold information, they might have a valid reason. More likely, in my experience, they may have something to hide.
FOIA was passed in 1966 to shift the presumption of government information from secrecy to disclosure. Its core purpose was to give citizens, journalists, and Congress a legal mechanism to see how the government actually operates—rather than relying on voluntary or selective releases.
Before FOIA, government information was disclosed at agency discretion. After FOIA, disclosure became the default.
FOIA passed because Congress concluded that a rapidly expanding federal bureaucracy had become too secretive, too insulated, and too powerful—and that democracy required legally enforceable transparency, not voluntary disclosure.
Newspapers across Texas demanded reform. Voters were openly angry. Lawmakers feared losing office. Reform candidates surged in the 1973 elections. But according to many journalists and activist groups, transparency laws were imposed on a system that never truly wanted them.
Texas recently required creation of a searchable database of letter rulings under House Bill 3033, but as of January 23, 2026, Paxton’s office had only gotten up to 2023. None of the PDFs would open. And HTML files were unavailable.
Screen capture from Rulings website. Site froze when I tried to open first PDF.
According to his office, Paxton received 40,000 appeals of open records requests in 2023 alone. So, there’s no way to determine whether Paxton’s office exhibits a systematic bias for or against TPIA requests. However, 40,000 is a shocking number. It shows how frequently local and county jurisdictions want to keep matters secret.
Why This Matters for Floodplain Development Issues
Texas adopted transparency laws in 1973 for the same reason they matter today:
Decisions affecting land, money, and power tend to drift toward secrecy without legal force.
In floodplain development, appeals of FOIA and TPIA requests commonly cite the privacy of developer studies as the reason for not releasing them. But in my humble opinion once a government official stamps such a study “approved,” the public should have the right to see the basis for the approval. Anything less is government by secrecy.
In the case of flood safety, such secrecy can destroy lives, homes, and life savings. And the statistics in the first two paragraphs of this post prove it.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/25/2026
3071 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/2018/07/HumbleFloodFromHCFCD-e1761946748900.jpg?fit=1100%2C821&ssl=18211100adminadmin2026-01-25 19:49:152026-01-29 06:39:39How Government Secrecy Contributes to Flooding
In fairness, before getting into concerns, let me state several things about the plans.
The consulting engineer clearly labeled the drainage analysis as preliminary.
Each page of the drainage analysis contains a disclaimer that says, “Note: The drainage plan is conceptual in nature and the final drainage design shall be in conformance with the latest City of Houston Infrastructure Design Manual.”
Page 3 states that:
All structures will have an elevation two feet above the 500-year flood level.
All proposed structures will be built on piers to reduce the need for fill.
Dirt excavated from detention ponds will be hauled away from the site.
Questions Raised by Plans
However, the preliminary drainage analysis raised more questions than it answered. For instance:
It did not claim “no adverse impact” downstream. Why?
The drainage impact analysis was dated 2/19/25 and approved by the City’s Floodplain Group on 3/3/25. Why the long delay before making them public?
Why deny me the analysis, but give it to Bloch?
A Public Works employee told me the plans were based on new, post-Harvey flood maps. But Page 2 states that they’re based on 2007 maps.
With that in mind, the 2007 maps show virtually all of the proposed development in the 100-year floodplain. How much of that is now in the floodway? Neither Public Works, nor Harris County Flood Control District will reveal the new flood map for this development. Why the secrecy?
The drainage analysis does not show roadways or trails which have the ability to back water up into existing neighborhoods. Why?
The drainage analysis does not consider water draining into the area from Trailwood, Kingwood Lakes, Kings Forest or Kingwood Drive. Why? These wetlands already serve a flood-mitigation purpose that will likely be destroyed.
The drainage analysis conflicts with promotional literature provided by the developer. The literature, for instance shows the road network being built up to 60 feet and pedestrian paths being built up to 71 feet.
Ground level varies throughout the development. According to the USGS National Map, it averages about 50 feet, ranging down to 46. So how much fill would it take to raise the roads 10-15 feet?
Elevation profile of Romerica land from USGS National Map shows average height of about 50 feet.
The general plan shows approximately 6,000 feet of roadway, with the streets alone being 60 feet wide . (6000L x 60W x 10H = 3.6 million cubic feet.) That’s 133,333 cubic yards of fill. Yet the analysis claims they need only 16,966 cubic yards of fill. And they won’t be getting it from the detention basins, because they say they’re hauling all that off.
So, how are they accounting for another 100,000+ cubic yards of fill? How will they raise the streets?
Next, where is the outflow analysis for the detention basins? None is provided. So, we can’t see whether they are adding or subtracting to flood peaks.
Dubious Benefit of Detention in Floodplain
And then there’s the biggest question of all. Will flood-plain detention that quickly goes under water in floods provide any flood-reduction benefit?
Floodplains already serve as stormwater storage during floods. FEMA considers floodplain storage already “spoken for.”
Still, detention basins are allowed in floodplains with certain provisions. Harris County requires basins to drain by gravity. But the bottom of these basins is 10 feet below the level of adjacent Kingwood Lake and 4.5 feet below the level of Lake Houston. So gravity alone will never drain these ponds in a flood. Pumps would be required. And electricity is often knocked out in floods.
What the Romerica Property looked like in the May 2024 flood. Water rose to treetop level.
And if new basins fill at the same time as the river, it provides zero peak flow reduction. That is why claimed floodplain detention is often illusory. Especially when the pre-/post- runoff ratio will increase almost 4X (Page 5).
Flickinger Wisely Pulls Variance Approval from Planning Commission Agenda
The City of Houston Planning Commission was scheduled to review a variance request today for Romerica. However, City Council Member Fred Flickinger wisely requested deferral of consideration until 2/5/26. That should give us more time to sort out these inconsistencies.
The variance request has to do with not connecting the east-west street to other streets on the east. That’s because there are no streets in that area. A Kingwood Country Club golf course surrounds Romerica’s property in that direction.
The delay gives us extra time to examine the rest of their plans.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/22/2026
3068 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/2026/01/20240504-DJI_20240504090422_0214_D-2-copy.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2026-01-22 21:47:302026-01-23 10:41:17Romerica’s Preliminary Drainage Analysis Raises Many Questions
1/21/26 – EB-5 visas are a special type of visa designed to attract foreign investment in American infrastructure projects and create American jobs. They put foreigners with approximately a million dollars to invest at the front of the immigration line. I asked ChatGPT, “What happens if you get an EB-5 visa, but then the project you invested in never gets built?”
Fictional AI image created by ChatGPT
That opened up a Pandora’s box. Evidently, the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) and Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) encounter this problem frequently. Here’s what I learned after a day of online exploration.
What Happens If Project Is Never Built?
For applicants, the consequences depend on where they are in the EB-5 process and why the project failed. The outcome can range from merely losing their investment to losing immigration benefits or both.
EB-5 is not a “pay-for-visa” program. USCIS requires:
Capital to be “at risk”
It must create at least 10 qualifying U.S. jobs per investor
Those jobs must actually be created, not just planned.
If the project is never built, job creation almost always fails — which is fatal to the visa.
ChatGPT
What happens to the visa depends on how the project fails and at which stage. There is no automatic protection. Approval of an EB-5 petition does not guarantee the success of the business or the return of capital. And the U.S. government does not underwrite or insure EB-5 investments.
Project failure is far more serious than in ordinary real-estate investing. EB-5 investors can lose both their investment AND their visa.
Red Flags in EB-5 Offerings
According to ChatGPT, these red flags appear repeatedly in failed EB-5 cases/projects.
“Job Cushion” Based Only on Future Projections
A legitimate EB-5 project should show at least 20-30% excess jobs based on hard construction costs alone. Danger signs include that cushion relying on future operations, such as a “Phase II.”
Developer with No Completed U.S. Projects
EB-5 visas are based on execution, not vision. USCIS does not care about renderings, master plans, press releases, or “international experience.” They only care whether buildings were actually built, certificates of occupancy were issued and operations began. Many EB-5 failures reportedly trace directly to “First U.S. Project.”
Vague Exit Strategy
EB-5 investors are almost always unsecured, subordinated, and last in line. Beware of phrases in promotional literature, such as “Sale Expected.” Repayment risk for investors may be extreme.
Floodway/Floodplain Location
A project located in a floodway or floodplain faces extraordinary engineering uncertainty. If construction is not feasible due to regulatory barriers, USCIS can later characterize the project as not viable from inception.
Refusal to Release Drainage Impact Analysis
If the project fails, this can become a material omission under federal securities law.
A Maze of Shell Companies
A complex web of LLCs and offshore entities may obscure ownership, transfer of funds, and transparency, especially if some entities are offshore or owned by foreign nationals.
Major Hotel-Chain-Involvement Claimed
Major hotel chains do not attach their names casually to projects. Saying major hotel chains are involved is a very common misrepresentation in EB-5 disputes. Brand usage without authorization has appeared repeatedly in prior SEC enforcement actions. Demand to see a signed letter of intent from any hotel chain touted as part of a project.
Why Hotels?
Hotels create not only construction jobs, they create permanent operational jobs, too – housekeeping, front desk, food & beverage, maintenance, management and more. This creates what EB-5 insiders call a “job factory.” Few other types of assets offer this.
Jobs can be modeled and assumed before anything is built. Reality is only tested years later…if the project gets built.
Hotels are also easy for foreign investors to understand. The psychological simplicity is powerful. But in the absence of a signed management agreement, beware.
Moreover, hotels are capital intensive, accommodating large numbers of EB-5 investors per project.
Finally, hotels can mask fatal land-use problems. EB-5 developers often propose them on floodplain land and wetlands, which conventional lenders avoid, but which foreigners may not understand.
A luxury hotel can be proposed almost anywhere on paper. And the difficulty of such sites can obscure the ultimate pending failure for years.
SEC and DHS investigators call this model “the hotel shell.” It’s a known “failure architecture.”
How Developers Can Quietly Fail EB-5 Projects
Most EB-5 projects do not collapse dramatically. They reportedly begin and then fade out according to a common pattern:
Promotion with a glossy website, roadshows, and a conceptual master plan. Capital is raised before execution risk is visible.
As time passes, investors are told of minor delays related to infrastructure costs, drainage requirements, off-site mitigation, and rising construction costs.
The capital stack breaks (the order in which money is repaid if something goes wrong). EB-5 money alone cannot carry the project as lenders withdraw, interest rates rise, appraisals come in low, or construction bids exceed the estimate.
Then silence! No press releases. No construction start. Updates stop. Investors receive only quarterly status letters. This phase can last years.
Finally, the USCIS deadline arrives. No construction. No jobs. No recovery of investment. And visa revocation.
To Verify Whether Developers Have Actually Completed Projects
Do not rely on marketing materials. Do your own due diligence.
Ask for Certificates of Occupancy from previous projects. Crosscheck those with county appraisal records. Check improvement values, year built, and square footage. If improvement value is near zero after several years, the project has not been built.
Look for building-permit close outs. If permits remain open for years, that’s a red flag.
Check for litigation. Search federal courts, bankruptcy courts and securities litigation. EB-5 failures often involve investor lawsuits, SEC actions and receiverships.
And finally look for consistency of the developer’s track record. Be wary if completed projects are small (or overseas), but proposed projects are grandiose.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/21/2026 based on ChatGPT responses to multiple questions
3067 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/2026/01/20260121-Failed-EB5-Investment.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2026-01-21 20:05:212026-01-21 20:39:33Red Flags for EB-5 Visa Applicants, Projects
1/20/26 at 3:30 PM – Consideration of a plat variance for a swamp development scheduled for a vote by the Houston Planning Commission on 1/22/26 has been delayed until at least 2/5. Houston City Council member Fred Flickinger requested the deferral at 12:25 PM today.
Shortly after 3PM, I received confirmation from both Dustin Hodges, Flickinger’s Chief of Staff, and Vonn Tran, Director of Houston’s Planning and Development Department, that the variance request by Roman Arrow, LLC will be delayed as requested by Flickinger.
So, if you were planning to go downtown to protest the development at this Thursday’s meeting, save your time. Hopefully, we will learn more about the developer’s plans before the 2/5 meeting. You can attend then.
About the Development
Roman Arrow, aka Romerica, has proposed building two luxury hotels and 120 villas/condos up to 8,600 square feet each in and around the swamps between Kingwood Lakes and the Barrington, just east of Woodland Hills Drive in Kingwood.
Solid green areas represent wetlands. Source: National Wetlands Inventory. Roman Arrow land is outlined in red. They propose development in two phases.View from current entry road during a month that received two inches of rain.Romerica Roman Arrow land is virtually all in the hundred year floodplain (aqua). Although when new flood maps are released the floodway of the West Fork (cross hatched area at bottom) will likely expand north.
For more information about the proposed development see the their high-level plans and variance application:
Phase One includes a 297,600-square-foot Fairmont Hotel with 400 rooms and 90 condominium residences.
Phase Two includes another 226,085-square-foot hotel with 37 8,611-square-foot villas, each on one third acre lots.
Media relations at the Fairmont chain has not returned phone calls or emails to verify their supposed involvement in the Kingwood development.
Refusal to Comply with FOIA Request
I have requested the drainage impact analysis submitted to and approved by Houston Public Works. However, Houston Public Works says that it belongs to the developer, so they have requested a ruling from the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on whether they can release it.
My point of view is that once Houston Public Works approved it, the approval and anything the approval was based on became public information and should be produced forthwith. Attorney General reviews usually take 45 days.
Other government agencies, such as Liberty County and Montgomery County routinely produce such studies in response to Freedom of Information Act Requests. Houston must have its own policy. And that policy merits review in my opinion. It makes a mockery of any pretext to transparency.
Having said that, I know many people in the City who would produce it in a minute if something weren’t holding them back.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/20/2026
3066 Days since 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/2026/01/Romerica-Outline-copy.jpg?fit=2210%2C1498&ssl=114982210adminadmin2026-01-20 17:10:252026-01-20 17:18:28Plat Variance for Swamp Development Deferred by Planning Commission
Draft Agenda Item 89 lists the project name as River Grove, but drawings within the variance request call it Kingwood Marina.
City Appeals FOIA Request to Attorney General
The Planning and Development Department appealed my Freedom of Information Act request for the developer’s drainage study to the Texas Attorney General. That means the public may not be able to review the drainage plans before the Planning Commission rules on plat approval. Worse, the public may never get to see the drainage study.
Marbet Alonzo of the City Planning and Development Department said, “The document you requested is a third-party document and cannot be released at this time. We have submitted a request to the Attorney General’s Office for a ruling. Once a determination is made and the document is eligible for release, we will provide it promptly.”
Approving plans before the public has had a chance to review all relevant documents highlights serious transparency and procedural issues.
Bob Rehak
You may submit public comments by sending an email to speakercomments.pc@houstontx.gov, at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Reference 2025-2266 River Grove GP in the title of your email.
Transparency and Procedural Issues
In my opinion, the only honorable thing to do in this case is to defer a decision until after the attorney general has ruled on release of the study, and the public has had time to review and prepare comments. If the attorney general allows the drainage plans to remain secret, then the City should deny permits.
Page 158 of the agenda shows that consideration may be deferred to a future date. However, the MLK holiday disrupted the Planning Commission’s normal publication schedule. So, I’m still looking at a DRAFT agenda. However, public comments must be submitted 24 hours before the meeting. Accordingly, I’m publishing this post today, so that people can email comments Tuesday before the deadline on Wednesday.
Rehak’s Concerns
To be fair, my concerns go beyond street layouts. I have been photographing this property for years. I started when Romerica first proposed building 50 story high-rises in the floodplain of the San Jacinto West Fork on another portion of their property south of the Barrington.
But I’ve also kept a close eye on the portion of the property north of Barrington. The photos below show some of the issues.
Roman Arrow land after two inches of rainfall in previous month.Looking E. Barrington on R. Roman Arrow property upper left. Photo taken on 5/3/24.One day later from opposite direction looking W. Roman Arrow property is right of upper center.USGS National Map shows that Roman Arrow land (center) averages 7 feet lower than Barrington (Bottom).Roman Arrow/Romerica Wetlands shown in green both north and south of Barrington (center)
Given that current floodplain maps show the entire Roman Arrow property in the 100-year floodplain, they will not be able to bring in fill to elevate the homes and hotel they plan to build there. They will have to excavate dirt from their property or elevate structures on stilts.
Romerica/Roman Arrow land in center; see above. Aqua=100-year floodplain. Brown=500 year. Cross-hatch=floodway of West Fork.
Note the date on the map above: 2007. When new flood maps are released, floodplains and floodways are expected to expand by 50-100%.
What Do They Plan to Build?
The developers have said they hope to build the development in two phases.
Phase One includes a 297,600-square-foot Fairmont Hotel with 400 rooms and 90 condominium residences.
Phase Two includes another 226,085-square-foot hotel with 37 8,611-square-foot villas, each on one third acre lots.
They plan to build the roads up to 60 feet – 13 feet above swamp level and 5 feet higher than the roads in Barrington.
Pedestrian pathways would be elevated to 71 feet – 11 feet above the roads.
The hotels would top out 65 feet above ground level. But the first residential floor of the condominiums would start at 65 feet and rise two stories.
They claim ground level will be 53 feet – 7 feet below the road level.
It’s all very confusing. That’s why we need to see the drainage plans. Where will the fill come from? Do they plan to build on stilts? Will structures and fill impede the flow of the floodway when new flood maps are released?
They can’t bring fill into the 100-year floodplain. And excavating it from land that’s already underwater won’t help mitigate increased flood potential.
Phase II HotelPhase II Condo
Third Time Around
This is the third concept that Romerica/Roman Arrow developers have pitched for this property.
The first was 25- to 50-story high-rises south of the Barrington with underground parking next to the floodway of the West Fork.
Then they pitched a series of homes on stilts under the name Orchard Seeded Ranches. That quietly fell off the radar.
Now this.
The land previously belonged to developer Ron Holley who fought the City for 20 years for the right to build on it.
Many have conjectured whether these developers are trying to raise money for the development via EB-5 visas. The developers are foreign nationals and are shielding their Texas operating companies through a series of approximately 30 shell companies at last count.
EB-5 visas give preferential consideration for green cards to foreigners and their families who invest $800,000 to a million dollars or more in American infrastructure projects that create jobs.
I have no evidence that that is their plan. Neither can I find any evidence that they have actually completed any developments in the U.S. under the names Romerica or Roman Arrow.
Neither Romerica nor Roman Arrow appears to have an active website – something that seems strange for a company claiming that this will be a half-billion project.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/19/2026
3065 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/2026/01/Roman-Arrow.jpg?fit=1100%2C716&ssl=17161100adminadmin2026-01-19 19:55:232026-01-19 21:28:49City to Consider Approval of Development in Swamp While Keeping Drainage Study Secret
