3/28/26 – At the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) Board Meeting on 3/26/26, HCFCD Executive Director Tina Petersen updated the board on a number of Lake Houston Area projects including the Kingwood Diversion Ditch. She confirmed it is fully funded – through construction.
However, design of the Diversion Ditch Project has not yet started. It should begin in April and finish by the end of 2027.
A year ago, the preliminary engineering study estimated the cost of the project at $40.7 million. Current estimates put the cost at $43 million, according to Petersen.
Looking N at the Kingwoodwood Diversion Ditch from over the Walnut Lane Bridge
Relationship to Bens Branch Flooding
The Diversion Ditch splits off of Bens Branch near St. Martha Catholic Church north of Northpark Drive.
Stormwater flow to Bens Branch will be restricted by pipes. That will force more stormwater into the expanded Diversion Ditch. In the process, that would take enough stormwater out of Bens Branch to improve it from a 2-year level of service to a 100-year level.
Red Diagonal = Bens Branch. White = Kingwood Diversion Ditch. Green = new outfall to river.
Diverting water from Bens Branch is important because Bens Branch runs through Kingwood Town Center where 12 people died from Harvey flooding.
Crenshaw Connection
Ironically, funding obtained by US Congressman Dan Crenshaw back in 2024 to widen the bridge shown above at Walnut Lane saved this project from the chopping block – even though it was ranked the most important project in Kingwood by the Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis.
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.
HCFCD spokesperson Emily Woodell confirmed the Diversion Ditch funding today. “It was categorized as a partnership project during the bond update presented to commissioners court in August [2025] which means it is fully funded through construction.”
For Updates on Other San Jacinto Watershed Projects
It covers a lot of territory including the history of HCFCD, status of the bond program, partnership funding, maintenance programs, gauges, the flood-warning system, and more.
Other capital improvement projects in the Lake Houston Area that she discusses include:
Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully – Construction starting in April.
Jackson Bayou Detention Basin – Construction starting Q3/2026.
Barrett Station Drainage Improvements – Currently in Design Stage.
Lake Houston/East Fork/West Fork Dredging – Completed.
Lake Houston Gates – Engineering should finish by end of this year.
3/27/26 – On 3/26/26, the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) board heard the results of a feasibility study about creating “dry-bottom dams” on Birch and Walnut Creeks. The creeks are far upstream in the Spring Creek watershed in Waller County and were being studied for potential flood-mitigation benefits.
The board made no decision in the meeting on whether to pursue recommendations from the study. However, they did agree to discuss several issues with study partners. Other sponsors included the City of Humble, Harris County Flood Control District and five municipal utility districts in Harris and Montgomery Counties.
Chief among the concerns discussed:
Whether funding is available given low Benefit-Cost Ratios (BCR)
Whether land is still available to build the projects
Finding a party that could take “ownership” the projects.
But before the presentation even started, Kaaren Cambio, a former director, laid down a fiery challenge to the board. Let’s look at the study first. It will provide a context for Cambio.
Benefit/Cost Ratio Concerns
Matt Barrett, PE, SJRA’s Water Resources and Flood Management Division Director, gave a presentation that summarized the results of the 661-page feasibility study.
The feasibility study came out of the larger San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan study which identified 16 projects costing more than $3 billion in a 3000 square mile area upstream from Lake Houston.
Birch Creek had an estimated BCR of .55 to .83. That means costs exceeded benefits by almost as much as 2 to 1.
Walnut Creek had an estimated BCR of .77 to 1.04. In the best case scenario, benefits barely exceeded costs.
See estimated BCRs in blue boxes. Date of BCR calculations is not listed, but they came from 2020 Master Drainage Plan, not Feasibility Study, according to Barrett.
Design and Operation
Barrett identified the construction as something akin to detention basins. The dams would feature a long barrier that trapped water with a small opening that let water out at a slow rate.
He next described how such construction would work in four different scenarios.
On a sunny day with no rain, water in the creeks would simply pass through them unobstructed.In a small storm, not likely to cause flooding, water would still pass through the opening unobstructed.But in a moderate storm that could cause minor flooding, water would pool behind the dam faster than it could go through.In a major storm, water would also pass over the spillway at the top of the dam.
Barrett then talked about the exact locations of the dams, their widths, and land-use conflicts. The latter include a solar farm and new developments in the project footprints.
Benefits of Project(s)
Next, Barrett addressed the flood reduction benefits of the two dams in 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year storms.
He discussed the benefits of both dams together and individually. Below are the combined benefits of both dams.
They produce benefits measured in feet upstream and inches downstream.
Upstream, near the dams, the benefits exceed 3 to 4 feet. But downstream, near the confluence with the West Fork at the US59 bridge, benefits would only be 3 to 4 inches. That’s because the dams have a large effect on the small watersheds they directly control. But they exert no influence over the rest of the San Jacinto River Basin draining to that point.
Location of Structures Benefitted
The study found that more structures in Montgomery County Precinct 3 would benefit than anywhere else – by a factor of almost 4X compared to other jurisdictions.
Social Benefits Needed to Justify Funding
Near the end, Barrett showed what happens to the BCRs if you include “social benefits,” such as time lost from work during and after a flood. When you factor those in, the benefits exceed costs. However, Barrett also pointed out that as of 2025, the federal government no longer allows social benefits in BCR calculations.
In my opinion, this makes federal support unlikely in the current environment. And the state is unlikely to be able to make up the difference. The cost of the dams comprises a huge percentage of the balance in the Texas Flood Infrastructure Fund.
Significantly, while Barrett addressed the BCR, he did not call out total current costs. He did mention 2020 costs of $200 million in his narration. But total current estimates from the study put the cost at $298 million. And even $298 million assumes property can be acquired at market rates.
Conclusions
Barrett’s concluding slide focused on the challenges ahead based on the findings of his feasibility study. He implies the projects are still worthwhile if you consider social benefits. However, he acknowledges several additional hurdles ahead. And they are high hurdles.
For instance:
Who will take ownership of this project when the dams are in Waller County? (Editorial comment: the largest beneficiary is Montgomery County Precinct 3)
Where will the money come from when social benefits no longer apply?
For a high-resolution PDF of Barrett’s complete slide deck, click here.
Cambio Comments
You may also want to watch Kaaren Cambio during the public comment period before Barrett took the floor. Cambio starts at 11:10 into the video. She is a former SJRA director appointed by Governor Abbott.
Cambio began by reminding the board that after Harvey, the governor charged the SJRA with developing short, medium, and long range plans to ensure another Harvey would never produce so much damage again.
Time it has taken the SJRA flood management division to produce studies
Management of the studies
Absence of any benefits produced to date in any of the SJRA studies since Harvey
Pursuit of the Spring Creek study even after it became clear the land was not available
Cost per structure pulled out of the floodplain in the Spring Creek study – more than $800,000 each
SJRA’s inability to examine less expensive options, such as buyouts or elevation of those structures
Cambio closed her remarks by urging the board to “Please go back and look at the goals that this division had and make sure you’re meeting those goals. And redirect your efforts, so that we are seeing manageable solutions.”
An outspoken leader, Cambio raised some great points.
You could sense the urgency in her voice as she pled with the board to implement solutions, not just studies.
Plea for Involvement
More people from downstream areas need to testify at SJRA board meetings. We should never let the SJRA board – now heavily dominated by Lake Conroe residents – forget the destruction of lives and property caused by the massive release from Lake Conroe during Hurricane Harvey.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/27/26
3132 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/2026/03/5.3_Spring-Creek-Rev2_Page_10.jpg?fit=2000%2C1125&ssl=111252000adminadmin2026-03-27 19:00:522026-03-29 09:07:18SJRA Board Takes No Action on Birch, Walnut Creek Dams Feasibility Study
3/26/26 – A $29,387,654 bid from Bryce Construction & Design, LLC has been approved by the county purchasing agent to construct the Woodridge and Taylor Gully flood mitigation projects in Kingwood. See Item 45 on the agenda. Here is their bid transmitted to Commissioners Court. It was the low bid.
To streamline approval of US Housing and Urban Development Department Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), several months ago Commissioners Court approved a proposal to let the County Purchasing Agent approve CDBG projects. They all have tight deadlines.
The contractor will mobilize within two weeks according to Emily Woodell, a Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) spokesperson. We should see dirt flying this Spring.
History of Project
Up to 600 families in Kingwood flooded twice in 2019 when Perry Homes’ contractors cleared approximately 268 acres for Woodridge Village just north of the Harris County line. Then they sloped the land toward Taylor Gully. Many of the families had just recovered from the first flood on May 7th when they flooded again in September before the stormwater detention basins had been built.
Subsequently, in 2020, Harris County and the City of Houston purchased the land so that it couldn’t be developed and flood Kingwood again. Before the purchase, Perry Homes built five stormwater detention basins on the Woodridge property. However, Montgomery County regulations at the time required much less detention capacity that Harris County – about 40% less.
That was because Harris County had already adopted Atlas 14 and because Montgomery County averaged rainfall estimates across the entire county, even though annual rainfall increases as you move south toward the county line.
Elements of Solution
So, Harris County Flood Control set out to study what it would take to properly reduce flood risk using Atlas 14 data near the county line. The studies recommended:
More upstream detention
Increasing conveyance of Taylor Gully
Replacing a culvert bridge at Rustic Elms with a clear-span bridge
Project overview from construction plans
The project limits of the proposed Taylor Gully Channel Improvements stretch from the Montgomery County boundary on the west to approximately 700 feet upstream of the confluence with White Oak Creek – a length of approximately 12,630 linear feet.
This portion of the project includes replacing the bridge at Rustling Elms.
At Rustling Elms, HCFCD will replace a culvert bridge with a clear-span bridge to remove a bottleneck.
HCFCD also plans to finish one more large stormwater detention basin upstream from Taylor Gully in Montgomery County.
HCFCD started work on the pond in January 2022 under an Excavation and Removal contract with Sprint Sand & Clay. The contract to remove up to 500,000 cubic yards of soil would have more than doubled the previous detention capacity on the site and more than made up for the 40% Atlas 14 shortfall.
However, HCFCD paused the Sprint contract when it applied for a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant. That’s because HUD rules stipulate that a project cannot change during the grant application period.
HCFCD later terminated the contract in November 2023 when it became clear the project would qualify for the grant. At that point, Sprint had already removed 160,000 cubic yards, an amount equivalent to approximately 100 acre feet. So if the figures in the construction drawing are accurate, the capacity of the basin will quadruple compared to what you see below.
Woodridge Village on May 31, 2025. The final basin will extend down past the trees near the end of the entry road.
Expected Impact
Contractually, work must finish within 552 days from the notice to proceed – approximately 18 months. That would make a great 2027 Christmas present for a lot of Kingwood families.
Under HUD’s Community Development Block Grant for Mitigation, all work must finish and billing must be completed by March 31, 2028. That should be doable.
The project will give Taylor Gully a 100-year level of service.
HCFCD
That means it should only come out of its banks in a hundred-year storm.
The improvements would reduce water-surface elevation (WSE) along Taylor Gully up to 6.9 feet in places and 4 to 5 feet on average for a 100-year storm event.
Also, this project will remove approximately 276 structures from a 100-year flood plain. Without the project, area residents would continue to flood in lesser storms.
Taylor Gully bridge at Rustling Elms during May 7, 2019, storm.
That means we should NOT see many more scenes like the one above until Noah’s comeback tour.
Thanks to Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE, for continuing to push this project when things seemed bleak.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/26/26
3131 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Overview.jpg?fit=2550%2C1650&ssl=116502550adminadmin2026-03-26 16:35:252026-03-27 08:08:45$29 Million Construction Contract for Woodridge, Taylor Gully Project Approved
3/25/26 – On 3/24/26, I photographed partially cleared property owned by HS Tejas LTD on West Lake Houston Parkway (WLHP) between the Kingwood YMCA and Kings Harbor.
Approximate area of partially cleared landcircled in red.
According to Dustin Hodges, Chief of Staff for District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger, the City has received no permit applications for developing the property yet.
To be clear, an owner does not need a permit to survey his property. But the survey may be required as preparation for:
Subdividing land/plat approval
Developing in floodplains
Title companies or lenders
So, this is an early sign that something could soon happen with the property. However, it’s not yet clear what HS Tejas plans.
Who Is HS Tejas?
HS Tejas is a company owned in part by Kingwood developer Ron Holley. Holley sold floodplain/floodway property on South Woodland Hills to a company affiliated with Romerica back in 2012. Since then, Romerica has tried repeatedly to develop the property with little luck using various concepts including:
Currently, Holley is also trying to develop Royal Shores Estates in the floodway and floodplain of the San Jacinto East Fork south of Kings Point.
Shifting Floodplain Maps
New flood maps show the floodway has expanded and now encompasses virtually all of Holley’s property. From a flooding perspective, a floodway is more hazardous than a floodplain because of the speed of water. To see how large the floodway has grown, compare the two images below.
Once the new draft maps become effective, Holley will have a much harder time developing the property because of restrictions on building in floodways. So, the impending map change may have something to do with the surveying.
Pictures Showing Recent Activity
Below are several pictures taken on 3/24/26 that show the partial clearing.
Note Deerwood golf course and Bens Branch in upper left. Looking slightly east and south from over WLHP.Looking S toward Self Storage and Memory Care facility in upper right.Memory Care facility in lower right.Looking E toward Deerwood. Looking W toward WLHP from over Bens Branch in bottom of frame.
Putting Flood Risk Into Perspective
The areas shown above are about a half mile from the San Jacinto West Fork along Bens Branch.
As a result of Harvey flooding, 12 residents of Kingwood Village Estates died. KVE is an assisted living facility more than a half mile north (farther from the West Fork).
Moreover, ALL of the adjacent businesses, townhomes, apartments and homes flooded in:
A floodway is not only defined by the speed of floodwaters. In Houston, the floodway is regulated as the portion of the floodplain required to convey the 100-year flood with no increase in water surface elevation. However, FEMA-mapped floodways may have been delineated assuming up to a 1-foot rise.
Developers cannot bring fill into a floodway. So, doing anything on this property will likely mean stilts, structural analyses, and more. Chapter 19 of the City’s floodplain regulations lays out the requirements.
Current activity is not visible from WLHP. So, please contact me if you hear or see anything.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/25/26
3130 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/2026/03/HS-Tejas-.jpg?fit=1100%2C707&ssl=17071100adminadmin2026-03-25 15:56:022026-03-26 06:22:30Surveyors Staking Out Property on WLHP in New Floodway
3/23/26 – The Texas Water Development Board recently issued a press release about the State’s Geographic Information Office (TxGIO) and Department of Information Resources (DIR) contracts. The concepts discussed in the article affect many growing areas in the San Jacinto watershed, which is plagued by political fragmentation.
Dozens of counties, cities, and utility districts share responsibility for development, drainage, and flood-control. But they update their flood maps infrequently and irregularly. So, engineers and hydrologists often have trouble planning. They have a fragmented, incomplete picture of what’s going on around them.
But these state systems help to change that. Two key takeaways:
They pre-qualify a pool of vendors. That shortens the qualification and bidding processes for services they may need, such as LIDAR.
Upon completion, studies become part of the public domain – available to everyone who can benefit from them.
The press release, reprinted below, talks about many synergies already discovered with these ingenious systems. They increase collaboration, speed, and cost sharing to improve planning and reduce flood risk.
From TWDB’s Texas Water Newsroom
Left to right: Lidar image of downtown Austin, Texas, aerial view of a neighborhood in Bexar County, and an elevation image of Canyon Lake
Imagine two neighboring communities facing the same challenge.
A small watershed authority in East Texas needs high-resolution elevation data. Recent storms have rewritten floodplain maps, and the old topography simply doesn’t match what residents now experience during heavy rains. Engineers need accurate models. Emergency managers need better evacuation planning. The watershed authority has the expertise to specify the data but lacks the budget to acquire it.
Forty miles away, a county engineering department faces the same problem. New development pressures require updated drainage studies. The county’s flood maps show their age. Engineers spend hours adjusting for known errors rather than designing solutions. They have budget allocated but procurement rules demand a competitive bidding process that will take a year or more to complete.
Both entities will acquire elevation data eventually, but they’ll pay different prices and receive deliverables that may not align at their shared boundaries. This fragmentation describes how Texas communities acquired geospatial data for decades—a siloed process that was slow and inefficient, with few opportunities for collaboration. The old way treated every project as a fresh start rather than a contribution to shared infrastructure.
StratMap Contracts
The Texas Geographic Information Office (TxGIO) and the Department of Information Resources (DIR) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) & Digital Land Surveying Products and Services contracts—known collectively as the StratMap contracts—were developed to be a far more streamlined procurement model.
The StratMap program was originally established in 1997 by Senate Bill 1 to develop consistent statewide digital data layers. Since then, its primary goal has been to acquire and improve digital geographic data for statewide mapping applications, and the program also maintains comprehensive data standard specifications to ensure consistent, high-quality data products across Texas. The TxGIO StratMap program administers and promotes the StratMap contracts, and TxGIO uses those contracts to get the data it needs to develop and maintain consistent statewide digital data layers.
For hydrologists modeling flood risks, engineers designing infrastructure, GIS professionals building applications, and citizens depending on sound governance, the StratMap contracts deliver what communities need most: quality geospatial services, software, and hardware at competitive prices.
How StratMap contracts work
The genius of the StratMap Contracts lies in their simplicity—generally, the state negotiates GIS contracts every five years so that individual communities and governmental entities don’t have to do it themselves. Before signing any potential StratMap vendor contracts, a team of GIS technical experts from TxGIO and DIR contract specialists evaluate every company seeking a StratMap contract based upon their project experience, technology innovation, professional staff, and available resources.
Companies that pass this review earn a place on the DIR Master Contracts list as qualified providers. These pre-approved providers serve Texas state, regional, and local government offices, including river and water authorities, and public education entities. Each approved vendor maintains a Pricing Index on their DIR contract page that lists available products, services, and software alongside pre-negotiated percentage discounts.
The three-step procurement process
Once a community identifies a need, the typical path forward contains three steps:
Review the Pricing Index on the vendor’s DIR contract page to confirm available offerings and discounts.
Obtain a quote directly from the vendor’s listed contact. The quote must reflect the contract’s pre-negotiated discount percentage. If the project is for a state agency and is over $50,000 or requires customization, the community provides a statement of work with the quote and must go through the DIR statement of work process for review and approval—which can take a couple of months.
Issue a purchase order listing the company’s DIR contract number.
That’s it. No months spent drafting and reviewing contracts. The master contracts already satisfy procurement requirements and enable entities to quickly obtain competitive bids from multiple pre-qualified vendors in one place. For state agencies, additional thresholds govern statement of work requirements and processes. But for most local governments, these three steps represent all the administrative requirements.
Complete geospatial coverage
StratMap Contracts cover the full spectrum of GIS:
Whether a community needs new data, help managing a project, or software to analyze existing information, the contracts provide access to quality vendors who can provide what they need. This streamlined procurement process alone is a huge benefit, but incredible strategic value emerges when communities start collaborating.
TxGIO is a collaboration facilitator
No single city or county sees the full map of geospatial activity across Texas, but TxGIO does. Through quarterly community meetings, TxGIO maintains visibility into which projects are being planned, where overlap may exist, and potential partnerships. When a community notifies TxGIO about a potential project, they don’t simply file the information. TxGIO scans for matches and considers who else might need the data to uncover opportunities that isolated communities may not find on their own. This approach allows communities to discover shared challenges and data requirements and combine their budgets to expand the scope of projects and meet their needs more effectively.
Cost sharing as standard practice
StratMap actively cultivates collaboration. Communities that use StratMap learn to start every project conversation with a simple question: “Who else might need this?”
Sometimes the answer reveals unexpected partners. A city planning some new parks might connect with a county assessing conservation easements. A groundwater district modeling aquifers might align with a utility mapping critical infrastructure. A school district planning new facilities might coordinate with emergency services designing evacuation routes. Each partnership multiplies the value of every dollar spent and builds relationships that endure beyond individual projects. Collaboration normalizes the idea that geospatial data serves regional needs.
The specification dividend
Partnerships under StratMap deliver another hidden benefit: better specifications.
When multiple entities collaborate on a statement of work, each brings distinct requirements to the table. The watershed authority prioritizes vertical accuracy for flood modeling. The county emphasizes land cover classification for drainage analysis. A participating city cares about planimetric features for infrastructure management.
Vendors receive requirements that reflect diverse, real-world needs rather than a single department’s perspective. The resulting data serves more purposes, satisfies more stakeholders, and delivers greater return on investment. TxGIO staff facilitate these conversations, helping partners balance competing priorities and arrive at specifications that work for everyone. Their experience across dozens of projects informs recommendations that communities couldn’t develop independently. This collaboration pays in immediate cost savings, in better data, and in regional relationships that strengthen Texas communities for years to come.
The compounding value of data in the public domain
For TxGIO StratMap projects, after vendors deliver final products and independent quality assurance confirms their accuracy, the data enters the public domain. TxGIO staff verify deliverables, integrate them into statewide collections, and make them available to everyone.
Traditional procurement treats data as a consumable. A community pays for it, uses it, and eventually replaces it, so its value degrades over time. The StratMap program inverts this model. TxGIO projects add to a growing public repository. Each new dataset increases the repository’s utility, and new users discover applications for that data that the original sponsors never imagined.
And because TxGIO maintains all StratMap deliverables, staff understand what works and what doesn’t. They have worked with more than 80 different agencies in Texas, from river authorities to municipalities, counties, and councils of government. So, TxGIO sees which specifications produce reliable results. They track which vendors consistently deliver quality and can identify emerging technologies that improve accuracy or reduce costs.
This experience informs future statements of work. When the next community plans a project, TxGIO staff recommend specifications refined through dozens of previous efforts. They warn against approaches that failed elsewhere and can suggest others that succeeded. Each project learns from every project that came before, which ensures that every Texas community, regardless of size or budget, can build on the best available information.
StratMap prepares Texas communities for the future
Texas faces challenges in the coming decades, from population growth to flood risks that will require sophisticated modeling and environmental needs that will demand informed management. Communities need accurate geospatial information to navigate these challenges effectively.
The StratMap contracts can help provide the foundational data upon which solutions to those challenges depend.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/23/26
3128 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/gis_imagecollage.jpg?fit=999%2C670&ssl=1670999adminadmin2026-03-23 13:40:492026-03-24 17:02:14TxGIO, DIR StratMap Contracts: Strategic Asset for Texas Communities
3/22/26 – The San Jacinto West Fork has migrated almost a mile closer to flood-prone Scarborough Development land near the giant Hallett Mine.
State Agency Charged with Flood Mitigation Invests in Development of Flood-Prone Land
In 2025, Scarborough Lane Development purchased 5,300+ acres of flood-prone land near the confluence of the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, Cypress Creek and Turkey Creek from a developer named Ryko. The State of Texas, via the School Land Board, which is part of the Texas General Land Office, reportedly helped Scarborough purchase the land.
Last year, State Rep. Steve Toth said the state invested $140 million in the property. However, subsequent attempts to verify that amount and the nature of any state investment proved fruitless. Both the GLO and State Attorney General refuse to disclose any information about what the developer calls his “partnership” with the state.
The developer is also fighting Mother Nature and the giant Hallett mine across the river, which threatens portions of Scarborough’s property as a result of less than optimal business practices.
Scarborough owns most of the forested section in the center plus more land to the south. Hallett owns or owned virtually all of the sand mines to the east.Dikes of large pond on SE have been breached in two places. River now runs through it.
River Now Almost a Mile Closer to Homes
Because Hallett left only small strips of land between its mine and the river, the river has breached dikes in four places above recently in ponds on the northwest and southeast.
The river now flows through the pond on the southeast instead of around it. That brings the river almost a mile closer to existing homes – and homes that Scarborough hopes to build.
Dumping Sediment Into River
Yesterday, I received texts and pictures from Jody Binnion, who lives next to the Hallett mine, which is now operated by RGI. While attempting to navigate upstream, Binnion noticed tons of dirt that Hallett had dumped into the river, perhaps in an attempt to shore up its dike.
Late last year, TCEQ cited the operation for five violations, which had been ongoing for more than a year.
Photo Courtesy of Jody Binnion, a fisherman who lives near the Hallett Mine.Second photo courtesy of Binnionfrom a second location.From over West Fork (center). Binnion estimated dumped material extended 50 feet into West Fork.He also felt the loose, unconsolidated material would wash away in the first flood, reducing the conveyance of the river and worsening flooding for homes nearby and downstream.Previous sediment has already totally blocked off the West Fork, forcing the river to migrate through the pit on the right, more than a mile closer to existing homes, near where Scarborough wants to build.A small portion of the Hallett Mine, upstream from Lake Houston, the drinking water source for more than two million people.
A Suggestion to Eliminate Conflict of Interest
TCEQ monitors the mine for Nitrate + Nitrite N, total suspended solids, pH, and hazardous metals including Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, and Zinc.
I have previously suggested turning such mines into the Montgomery County Lake District. That would make them an asset to surrounding homeowners rather than a liability.
It would also eliminate a huge conflict of interest for the GLO which administers more than $14 billion in flood mitigation funds for the federal government.
In my opinion, the General Land Office should reconsider its investment in the Scarborough development and instead join with Texas Parks and Wildlife in creating another state park. Preserving the surrounding land would reduce flooding, improve water quality, reduce water treatment costs, and improve public health.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/22/26
3127 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/2026/03/DJI_20260321142356_0685_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2026-03-22 18:25:532026-03-23 08:04:12San Jacinto West Fork Migrating Toward Scarborough Land Near Hallett Mine
3/21/26 – Yesterday, the first side panels for the Northpark Drive bridge walls started going up. By today, approximately a third of the northeastern wall was already in place. It’s exciting to see a plan coming together.
The bridge will ultimately consist of three main sections: one ramp at each end, plus the clear span section in the middle over the UnionPacific Railroad tracks and Loop 494. Contractors are working on the eastern ramp first while they also drill supports for the clear span section which will reach approximately 22 feet above the tracks.
Separately, the westbound turn lane onto southbound Russell Palmer was completed yesterday.
That makes paving on the entire Phase I project virtually complete except for areas around the bridge.
The only exceptions: surface lanes across the railroad tracks, the bridge itself (when complete), and some turn lanes onto/off of Loop 494 near the bridge.
And late today, I learned that contractors just received a green light to finish building the surface lanes up to the railroad tracks. That’s huge news! And it’s for both sides of Northpark from both directions!
Side Wall Going Up Quickly
Yesterday, around noon, I drove past Public Storage on Northpark and noticed the first side panel for the ramp to the bridge being hoisted in place. I made a mental note to come back today. And I was shocked – in a positive way – by the progress made in one day. See the pictures below.
Those white strips of concrete that form a U are “leveling pads” for the side panels, which you can see in front of Public Storage.Closer shot shows brackets which will help “anchor” the panels to compacted dirt that fills the area between the walls.Lifting another panel into place. Tongue-in-grove slots in the ends of panels let them interlock and brace each other.Progress by quitting time on Saturday afternoon. Note how some panels are already as high as vehicles.
Ralph De Leon, project manager for the Northpark Project, says this portion of the job usually goes quickly.
Farther west, those two pieces of heavy equipment have already sunk numerous piers for the bridge into the ground. I photographed them constructing this one on Thursday.
Paving Virtually Complete Elsewhere
Friday, 3/20/26, Harper Brothers poured quick-set concrete for the westbound turn lane onto southbound Russell Palmer Road.
Looking west from just east of Russell Palmer. Note fresh concrete in middle.
Now, all we need is the permanent traffic control signals at Russell Palmer.
Lookin east toward the terminus of Phase 1 from the easternmost portion of the bridge.Note new street light already installed in lower right.
It won’t be long now before this portion of the road opens.
3/20/26 – This week, we had more two more examples of flood-mitigation projects that are being studied to death.
Spring Creek Watershed Flood Control Dams on Birch and Walnut Creeks
Kingwood Diversion Ditch
They might not be buried yet, but they might as well be.
Let’s look at each and the implications for flood control.
Birch and Walnut Creeks
The two flood-control projects in the Spring Creek watershed were first studied in 1976 (see page 24) when the land was predominantly forested and could have been purchased for a tiny fraction of what it costs today. No one took action then. The benefit/cost ratio came in close to zero; project costs far outweighed benefits by more than 10:1.
This week, 50 years later, SJRA published another study, suggested by a previous 2020 study. And the new study suggested yet another study. But the study just published took so long – 5 years – that land for the projects sold to developers before SJRA completed the study. Whew! Follow all that?
So, the current study’s authors actually suggested yet another study to see if an unidentified sponsor could buy the property (which isn’t for sale) – while engineers design the dams, which probably won’t qualify for funding.
Why? The current study took so long that the federal government excluded social benefits from Benefit/Cost Ratios (BCRs). But the reported BCRs included social benefits…because the study’s authors hoped the Federal Government might include them again at some point in the future. So much for making studies actionable!
It may be time to put this one out of its misery. SJRA can’t even seem to interest Waller County in helping, even though its own residents would benefit the most.
Sites of proposed flood-control dams in NE Waller County within the Spring Creek Watershed.
Kingwood Diversion Ditch
One third of all the people who died in Harris County during Harvey died along Bens Branch when the Kingwood Diversion Ditch couldn’t divert enough stormwater.
Ben’s Branch and the Kingwood Diversion Ditch operate as one system to drain the western half of Kingwood. Friendswood conceived the Diversion Ditch as a way to take pressure off Ben’s Branch. But over time, upstream development has overwhelmed both.
Back in 2020, HCFCD’s Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis named the Diversion Ditch the most important project in the area. Congressman Dan Crenshaw requested a $1.6 million grant for Diversion Ditch design in 2021 and obtained it.
Then a preliminary engineering review took three years longer than planned and was widely criticized for missing opportunities.
Next, HCFCD took two years to negotiate the price of the design phase which should have finished by now. But it hasn’t even started yet. So yesterday, HCFCD requested a 2-year extension on the grant.
If lucky, we may see the design by 2028 – 11 years after Harvey. Then come the long and arduous tasks of obtaining funding and completing construction. By then, new upstream development will likely have changed design assumptions. And another study may be necessary.
To widen a straight-line ditch, we’ve already spent twice as much time as it took the U.S. to win World War II.
Looking South along the Kingwood Diversion Ditch from Kings Mill
Political Fragmentation Favors Delay, Not Decisiveness
In my opinion, both of these flood-mitigation projects have stalled because the people in charge of them have lost all sense of urgency or can’t see a clear path to completion.
Action is difficult in the highly fragmented world of flood control because it requires coordination among multiple government agencies on the local, county, state and federal levels. It’s much easier to create the appearance of action – with studies.
But the studies by themselves do nothing to reduce flood risk. For those with long memories or PTSD, they at least hold out hope that someday, somehow, something may happen.
In reality, though, these projects have almost a zero chance of getting built.
The study findings are already obsolete – because of inflation, new development, policy changes, and new political leaders with different priorities. So, we just keep studying things to death.
Meanwhile, indecision is a decision with consequences measured downstream. I have four suggestions:
The state should set up river-basin wide flood control districts. We’re all in this together.
Collectively, we need to redesign flood mitigation business practices around prevention, not correction. It’s much easier and exponentially cheaper.
Hold managers to deadlines. Hire people with entrepreneurial experience and a sense of urgency.
Quit studying things to death. If a project won’t happen, admit it and focus on projects with a fighting chance.
I can already hear the critics now. “Let’s study those suggestions!”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/20/2026
3125 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RJR_4304.jpg?fit=1500%2C1000&ssl=110001500adminadmin2026-03-20 20:44:572026-03-20 20:44:58Studied to Death
3/19/26 – The first all-weather evacuation route from Kingwood is getting closer to completion as the Northpark Bridge becomes reality.
Contractors hustled everywhere today:
Installing new streetlights and final drainage
Excavating entry ponds
Finishing work on Loop 494
Placing rebar
Pouring concrete
Building piers for the Northpark bridge over the UPRR and Loop 494
Laying foundations for ramps that will lead up to the bridge.
The pictures below tell the story. Let’s start with the biggest remaining piece of the Northpark Project jigsaw puzzle: the bridge.
Beginnings of a Bridge
I took all the pictures below today between 1 PM and 2 PM. Near Public Storage the first six piers for the bridge were in the ground. You could see foundations for the wing walls/abutments that will lead up to the bridge.
Those two concrete strips just inside the work area are leveling pads for the retaining walls that will form the ramp for the lead up to the bridge. Also note the eight finished piers in the foreground.
Truckers delivered the wall panels (not shown) to the site as I left. The area between the two leveling pads will be filled with compacted soil.
According to Ralph De Leon, the project manager for the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority/TIRZ 10, Harper Brothers will connect the insides of the wall panels to metal straps approximately 20 feet long and embed the straps in the compacted soil.
More rebar tubes await as more holes are drilled for more piers. See below. See line of piers across bottom of frame.
Contractors drilled another hole (right) as I watched.
Equipment on right drills holes then pumps slurry into them. The crane on the left lifts and places the rebar cages into the holes. Slurry being pumped into the hole from the yellow container in the background. Note the slurry in the hole just drilled. It keeps the sides from collapsing until they pour concrete. They will pump concrete to the bottom of the hole. Because of its density, it will displace the temporary slurry, which they then siphon off. Contractors digging trench for another leveling wall that will go under the ramp leading to the bridge. The sand will stabilize the concrete.
Loop 494 Construction Virtually Complete
Loop 494 has reached its full width. It still needs striping tie-ins in a couple places to Northpark traffic. That will likely happen when UPRR installs crossing gates and contractors finish the rail crossings on Northpark.
The final cross section of 494. TXDoT will repeat this same cross section as 494 expansion moves northward. It’s the same cross section they built at Kingwood Drive.
UPRR Crossings
UPRR decided to install controller cabinets for its crossing signals on both sides of Northpark, not just the south.
Electronics are already installed and energized. UPRR just needs to install new crossing arms and hook them up.
After the new crossing arms become functional, contractors can finish paving the surface turn lanes that will go on either side of the bridge (where traffic is currently routed, through the center of the photo above). Within months, we should begin to see a bridge taking shape where those old lanes are now.
Eastern End of Project Virtually Complete
Farther east, the roadbed looks virtually complete with the exception of some finishing touches, such as striping, traffic signals, and filling in the median between the center curbs.
Looking east (inbound) from near the entrance to Northpark Christian Church.
One small section remains near the eastern terminus of Phase I – a westbound turn lane onto southbound Russell Palmer Road.
Looking west toward 59 toward Russell Palmer intersection.
Entry Ponds
At the other end of the project, at US59, contractors have almost finished excavating the north entry pond.
North entry pond at US59 and Northpark. Excavation has restarted.
The ponds will average 18 feet in depth and reach 22 feet at the deepest point. The edges of the pond already concealed the top of the truck below.
After Harper Brothers finishes excavating the North Pond, it will put down a concrete base, then finish the South Pond.
When Harper Brothers finishes both ponds, a subcontractor will install pond liners. Liner installation should take about two weeks.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/19/26
3124 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/DJI_20260319141544_0668_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2026-03-19 18:53:432026-03-19 19:03:52Contractors Pouring Foundations for Northpark Bridge
Note: Updated on 3/19/26 after receiving additional information from SJRA.It’s unlikely either of these projects will ever be built.
3/18/26 – The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) has released a 661-page “conceptual engineering feasibility study” on two flood-control dams in the Spring Creek watershed. One is on Birch Creek and the other on Walnut Creek. Both are dry detention dams that would capture floodwater temporarily and release it slowly after the peak of a storm passes.
The Walnut Creek reservoir could hold approximately 13,000 acre feet of stormwater and Birch could hold 9,000 acre feet. The 22,000 acre feet combined represent enough to reshape flood peaks significantly in the immediate area. Downstream areas would also benefit, but to a smaller degree.
The Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) on the Walnut Creek Dam barely meets Federal funding thresholds. However the Birch creek BCR is substantial. As a result, the study recommends pursuing both projects, but Birch Creek first.
The study also recommends:
Another study to design dams on both creeks
Refining property acquisition prices
Pursuing the two projects independently rather than jointly.
That latter recommendation is because the combined BCR for the two dams falls far below 1.0 due because the areas benefitted include some duplication. So, they won’t get funded together. Costs far exceed benefits.
Finally, the feasibility study also recommends finding an entity willing to take ownership of the project and a funding mechanism to maintain the projects in Waller County in perpetuity! However, that section of the study does not list Waller County as a potential partner.
Net: While the tone of this study feels optimistic, many obstacles stand in the way that aren’t directly addressed on page 1. This feasibility study never does render an opinion on feasibility. It simply calls for another study to determine whether land can be acquired and what the real costs are.
Flood-Reduction Benefits of Dams
The Birch and Walnut Creek dams would have probable maximum inundation areas of 920 acres and 1,370 acres respectively; 640 acres and 940 in a hundred-year storm. If ChatGPT’s calculations are correct, they could shave peak flows near the creeks by a quarter to a third.
However, downstream at the confluence of Spring Creek and the West Fork, their impact would be much smaller – only 3.1% of the total flow. See below.
100-year Peak-Flow Reduction as a Percentage
Location
Existing 100-year discharge (cfs)
Walnut only
Birch only
Combined
On Walnut Creek
18,334
34.8%
24.0%
58.0%
Walnut Creek Confluence
48,330
2.5%
1.8%
4.0%
SH 249
46,808
7.3%
5.0%
11.6%
Kuykendahl
58,220
4.7%
3.3%
7.9%
Gosling
56,087
6.1%
3.5%
9.2%
I-45
60,814
5.5%
4.2%
7.7%
West Fork Confluence
69,337
1.9%
1.2%
3.1%
Table calculated by ChatGPT from other data available within the report.
Upstream near the projects, peak reduction percentages are large because of the smaller drainage areas. But as you move downstream, inflows from other tributaries, such as Cypress Creek, dramatically reduce the percentages. You’re seeing the impact of much larger areas being drained.
Benefit/Cost Ratios
To meet Federal funding requirements, the benefits of a project must exceed its costs. And those benefits are typically calculated by the number of homes taken out of the 100-year floodplain – in this case 335, most of which are residential.
From page 4 of study. ACE stands for Annual Chance of Exceedance.1% = 100-year storm..2% = 500-year.
Estimating the value of those 335 structures then comparing them to the cost of the dams, shows that each project has a favorable Benefit/Cost Ratio. But Walnut Creek’s BCR of 1.05 just barely exceeds the Federal funding threshold of 1.0. Said another way, benefits barely exceed costs.
Worse, the reported BCRs for both projects include “social benefits.” The federal government no longer allows those as of 2025. But the study authors elected to keep them in the BCRs they reported. That’s because the projects can’t meet the 1.0 requirement without them. The study authors say on page 5 of the executive summary, “…these benefits are not being considered by FEMA at this time.” However, they add, FEMA may re-allow them in the future. (Bottom, Page 10 of PDF or 5 of Executive Summary.)
But that’s not the only B52-sized fly in the ointment. Because this study took so long, a giant solar farm grew up over and around the proposed Walnut Creek project area. Construction started in 2023 and completed in 2025. This study has been gestating since 2020. That drove up the projected purchase price of the Walnut Creek land and drove down the BCR.
Building the Walnut Creek project would require relocating approximately 880 acres of solar panels. That’s 1.375 square miles – 34% of the land in the total Walnut Creek Project.
The cost of relocating all those solar panels has driven up costs and driven down the BCR to the point where the benefits barely outweigh projected costs. The estimated ratio of benefits to costs is 1.05 – marginal.
Moreover, because the study took so long, the Birch Creek project is also endangered. According to the SJRA’s Matt Barrett, “That project would be more difficult to work around.”
But unlike Walnut Creek, the Birch Creek numbers apparently do not incorporate a workaround. So, it’s not totally clear how real the numbers below are.
Both dams together have an estimated total cost of $298 million.
That puts the estimated average cost per structure removed from the floodplain at $890,000.
And 42% of the housing in the project areas qualifies as low-to-moderate income (LMI). However, the entire 661-page report does not use the word “elevate” once. Nor does it use the word “buyout” once. Evidently, the study authors did not consider those alternative mitigation options. Both are classic FEMA strategies to reduce mitigation costs. And one Federal official I talked to said Federal dollars are available for both.
According to Barrett, “Elevation could potentially be a viable strategy in at least some locations/scenarios, but this study was focused on the feasibility of reservoirs in the Spring Creek watershed.
What Study Does/Does Not Show
The feasibility study covers topics such as probable costs, potential sources of funding, potential sponsors, land acquisition hurdles, environmental issues, permitting steps, probable designs, alternative dam locations, soils issues, cost-benefit analyses, and more.
However, even though the report is billed as a feasibility study, the conclusion does not state whether the proposed dams are feasible. It leaves that determination up to those who will debate the disparate findings.
Neither did I find discussions about:
Cheaper mitigation options
BCR calculations without social benefits included
The likelihood of social benefits being re-included in the official formula
What the cost of the proposed next study would be.
In fairness, “social costs” may sound fuzzy. But they include major real-world impacts of flooding, such as displacement, temporary housing, health impacts, economic disruption, school closures, tax losses, etc. So, real-world benefits likely exceed what the official formula allows.
The Costs of Not Taking Action
Also among topics I did not see in the report were the costs of not taking action. The projects are proposed for fast growing areas in far northeast Waller County.
Walnut (left) is larger, but a solar farm already occupies about a third of the basin(grid pattern in background).Black outline is the Spring Creek Watershed. Tan area = Walnut Creek. Red area = Birch Creek. 290 in lower left. Lake Conroe in top center.
Areas most positively impacted by these projects include Klein, Spring and the Woodlands. However, Humble, Kingwood and the Lake Houston area would benefit to a lesser degree. At the US59 bridge, the dams would reduce the height of a 100-year flood by an estimated 4 inches. That might not sound like much until the water starts creeping up your slab.
But peak reduction is only part of the story. The dams would also help keep peaks from other Lake Houston tributaries from stacking on top of each other and creating backwater effects.
Policy Implications
Upstream development makes the case for these dams more urgent, while also making delay more expensive. Why?
Land gets more expensive
More structures enter harm’s way
More roads/utilities complicate acquisition and permitting
Basin footprints become politically harder to preserve.
So, there is a race between:
Locking in regional storage now, or
Letting development consume the very geography needed for floodwater storage.
Delay makes the projects:
More necessary
More expensive
Less effective
If Waller County urbanizes hard over the next decade, then the region may face a worse choice later:
Buy much more expensive land for detention
Widen channels downstream
Dredge more often
Rely more heavily on reservoir operations
Or accept higher recurring damages.
These projects are not just flood-control projects; they are also land-preservation decisions. Ironically, Houston considered buying land in these same areas in 1985 when the price was a fraction of what it is today. But the rural land didn’t justify the BCR at the time.
“One of the important next steps includes identifying a project sponsor within the region that will continue to move the projects forward,” says one of the conclusions.
It seems to me, that needs to happen before proceeding with design of the dams. Without someone willing to push the project forward, what’s the point of a final design that sits on the shelf for decades until it’s no longer doable?
Someone also needs to find whether the land can even still be purchased. If it’s already locked up, another study is a non-starter.
For More Information
The size of the entire study on the SJRA site is more than 330 megabytes. Several people have reported trouble downloading. So I have broken the study up into smaller chunks. See below.
SJRA Spring Creek Dams Feasibility Study – Evaluation of retention sites on Birch and Walnut Creeks. Entire file was 331 megs. Even when “reduced,” the 661 page report weighed in at 63 megs. So I broke it up into several sections to make it easier to download. I have also copied this information to the SJRA tab on my Reports page.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Birch-Walnut-Locations-in-Spring-WS-copy.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2026-03-18 20:10:522026-03-19 21:06:30SJRA Releases Feasibility-Study Findings on Spring Creek Flood-Control Dams
