4/27/25 – A drainage ditch that runs under Kingwood Drive about a tenth of a mile west of Kingwood High School is blocked. Where the ditch runs through the median, it has become so overgrown, you cannot even see it.
Historical images in Google Earth suggest that the City has not cleared the ditch since 2002. Full height trees have grown up in it, contributing to the blockage.
During Harvey, Kingwood High School flooded to the second floor. Four-thousand students had to be bussed to other schools for a year during decontamination and reconstruction.
Kingwood High School during Harvey. Kingwood Drive (upper left), one of the area’s main evacuation routes, was also cut off.
Ditch is So Overgrown, You Can’t See It
Harris County Flood Control labels the ditch as G-103-36-01. It crosses under Kingwood Drive about one-tenth of a mile west of Valley Manor and the high school.
See the pictures below. Can you even see where the ditch is? Hint: it’s in the center of the frame.
Looking slightly south. Lake Kingwood is toward the topof the frame.Opposite direction. The ditch runs between the two storm drains on either side of Kingwood Drive.From a lower elevation, you can see under the forest canopy. Still no clear path for drainage.
The City has cleared all the other ditches in the map above, but not this one. It’s so overgrown, they likely can’t find it and confuse it with one of the other ditches they’ve already cleared.
Because this blockage has the potential to cut off a major evacuation route, we can’t afford to wait any longer.
I have reported it previously several times already. To be clear, Harris County Flood Control District is responsible for keeping the channel clear. But the City is responsible for cleaning out the channel under its roads, i.e., Kingwood Drive.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/27/25
2798 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250427-DJI_20250427170326_0252_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-04-27 19:09:112025-04-27 19:18:29Blocked Ditch Under Kingwood Drive Near High School
4/26/25 – Where does Texas get its money and why does it matter?
According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau analyzed by the Pew Foundation, the State of Texas received almost as much revenue from the Federal Government as it did from taxes in 2022.
That means that cutbacks in federal spending could affect disaster preparedness, flood mitigation, and recovery efforts in the Lone Star State at a time when more and more hurricanes are rapidly intensifying.
Texas Gets 38% of Its Money From Federal Government
In 2022, the last full year for which the Census Bureau has published data, Texas received 38% of its revenue from the federal government.
The percentage peaked in Texas during the Pandemic, but otherwise has hovered in the 30-40% range for the last quarter century.
How States Use Federal Money
According to Pew, the funding states receive from the U.S. government helps pay for public services, such as health care; education and training; public safety and justice; housing and community development; child care; transportation; and infrastructure.
In Texas, billions also help mitigate flooding in the form of buyouts; grants for studies; and design and construction of flood-reduction projects.
Budget Cuts Could Impact Disaster Spending
Recent budget cuts driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration have significantly impacted both the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), affecting disaster preparedness.
The cuts come in the form of program terminations, staff reductions, and shifts in responsibilities. The administration has signaled intentions to drastically reduce or even eliminate FEMA’s role in disaster response, shifting responsibilities to states.
The reductions not only diminish the federal government’s capacity to respond to emergencies, but also place additional burdens on state and local governments to fill the gaps left by these federal withdrawals.
Recent studies indicate a notable increase in the frequency and magnitude of rapid intensification events:
Increased Frequency Near Coastlines: The frequency of rapidly intensifying storms within 240 miles of coastlines has significantly increased over the past 40 years. National Geographic
Higher Intensification Rates: Between 1971 and 2020, mean maximum intensification rates for Atlantic tropical cyclones increased by up to 28.7% compared to earlier decades. Nature
Global Trends: The occurrence of rapid intensification events has tripled in global coastal regions from 1980 to 2020, highlighting a worldwide trend.
These changes are largely attributed to warmer ocean temperatures, which provide more energy for storms, and a more humid atmosphere. Wikipedia+1The Atlantic+1
Recent Examples of Rapid Intensification
Several recent hurricanes exemplify this alarming trend:
Hurricane Otis (2023): Transformed from a tropical storm to a Category 5 hurricane with 165 mph winds in less than 24 hours before striking Acapulco, Mexico.
Hurricane Milton (2024): Rapidly intensified from a Category 1 to a Category 5 hurricane within 12 hours over the Gulf of Mexico, fueled by exceptionally warm sea surface temperatures. The Atlantic
Hurricane Beryl (2024): Became the earliest Category 5 hurricane on record in the Atlantic, intensifying rapidly due to unusually warm ocean waters.
Implications for Coastal Communities
The increasing frequency of rapid intensification events poses significant risks, including:
Reduced Preparation Time: Communities have less time to prepare and evacuate, increasing the potential for loss of life and property.
Forecasting Challenges: Rapid changes in storm intensity complicate forecasting efforts, making it harder to provide accurate warnings.
Increased Damage Potential: Stronger storms can lead to more severe flooding, higher storm surges, and greater overall destruction.
Given these trends, it’s crucial for coastal regions, including Texas, to enhance their disaster preparedness plans and capabilities.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Texas-Funding-Pie-Chart-e1745708000203.png?fit=1100%2C652&ssl=16521100adminadmin2025-04-26 17:58:282025-04-27 07:30:13Where Texas Gets Its Money and Why It Matters
4/25/25 – A company called Ryko has proposed building a 5,500 acre development in southern Montgomery County, immediately west of US59. More than half of their land lies in the floodway and floodplains of Spring Creek and the West Fork.
The Ryko property is 20 times larger than the Woodridge Village property, which flooded hundreds of Kingwood homes twice in 2019. Did we learn anything from that experience?
Looking NW from over the US59/San Jacinto bridge at the general area where Ryko owns more than 5,500 acres it wants to develop.
A knowledgeable, concerned resident sent a list of concerns which I am reprinting below. However, the writer has asked to remain anonymous. I’ve also included links to posts and official documents at the end of the letter, so readers can find relevant information in one place.
– Start of Letter –
I am writing as a concerned citizen to express strong opposition to the proposed Ryko (Townsen) Development in southern Montgomery County and to raise questions about the lack of transparency and integrity surrounding its approval process, drainage study, floodplain impacts, and associated public funding mechanisms.
This project raises significant public interest concerns that demand further scrutiny before any development proceeds.
⚠️ Floodplain Fill and Inadequate Drainage Analysis
The development proposes significant floodplain fill in and near the 100-year and 500-year flood zones of Spring Creek and the West Fork San Jacinto River.
The developer’s own drainage study acknowledges increased water surface elevations during the 2- and 10-year storm events—then dismisses them for “future mitigation.”
The proposed Townsen Blvd bridge is modeled using outdated HEC-RAS v3.0.1 steady flow methods, failing to account for dynamic storm conditions or backwater effects common to this area.
Critically, the drainage report does not evaluate a Harvey-scale event, despite the project’s location at the confluence of two major watersheds severely impacted during Hurricane Harvey.
🛑 No Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) has been approved by FEMA or signed by the Harris County Floodplain Administrator. Without this, any fill in the floodplain would violate federal NFIP regulations (44 CFR § 60.3).
🌊 Unequal Mitigation Practices Across County Lines
The drainage study mitigates 1:1 for fill in the 500-year floodplain in Harris County, but in Montgomery County, it only mitigates for fill placed in the 100-year floodplain.
While this may technically comply with Montgomery County’s regulations, it is not best practice, especially in a watershed with regional downstream consequences.
💧 Analogy: Filling the floodplain without mitigation is like filling half a bathtub with sandbags and expecting the water to stay still—it doesn’t. It simply gets pushed elsewhere, potentially flooding neighboring properties.
🗺️ Use of Outdated Models – MAAPnext Ignored
The report uses base models from the San Jacinto Regional Master Drainage Plan but fails to incorporate MAAPnext, the updated floodplain modeling system developed by FEMA and HCFCD.
MAAPnext is being adopted as the regulatory standard in Harris County and includes better data for rainfall, topography, and land use.
This development should be reevaluated using MAAPnext before any approvals are granted by FEMA, Montgomery County, or Harris County.
🚦 Traffic Analysis Skipped in Violation of County Review Order
Montgomery County regulations clearly require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to be reviewed before a Drainage Impact Analysis (DIA) is approved.
There is no indication that a TIA has been submitted or approved. Approving the drainage study without first completing the TIA violates the county’s own development review process.
📝 Montgomery County’s Own Records Show Deep Reservations
In the March 22, 2023 meeting minutes, Montgomery County engineers stated clearly that development in this flood-prone area “should be avoided.”
They also noted they may not support the required CLOMR/LOMR filings.
This clearly shows that the project is far from approved—despite misleading public statements to the contrary.
🌱 Wetlands Presence and Permitting Gaps
The drainage report states that wetlands are present throughout the site, but a formal wetland delineation and jurisdictional determination has not been completed.
If any of these wetlands are deemed jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act, then a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required.
Proceeding without this determination and permit could constitute a federal violation.
💰 Tax Abatements, Bond Spending, and Conflicts of Interest
In 2017, Montgomery County granted a tax abatement to the Ryko development before these drainage and environmental concerns were studied.
In fall 2024, the County extended that abatement and removed the requirement to build the Spring Creek bridge, still awarding nearly $28 million in tax benefits to the developer.
At the same time, the County included $42 million in the November 2024 road bond to fund the northern segment of Townsen Blvd—primarily benefitting this development.
Although this section of Townsen was later removed from the bond project list, residents do not trust that it won’t proceed anyway, and many now plan to vote against the bond.
🧾 PAC Influence and Consultant Conflicts
A political action committee called Montgomery in Motion was formed to promote the bond.
From what I understand, major engineering firms that stand to receive design contracts from the bond appear to be contributors.
It is suspected that support for the bond may be informally tied to future consultant work.
I have not yet found campaign finance disclosures, but a prominent engineering firm has been actively speaking to trade groups promoting the bond, and unsolicited text messages are being sent to voters.
With nearly $100 million of bond proceeds projected to go to consultants, this raises serious conflict of interest concerns.
✅ What Should Happen Now
No construction or floodplain fill should proceed without an approved FEMA CLOMR.
The drainage models must be rerun using MAAPnext for accuracy and relevance.
Montgomery County should require 1:1 mitigation for all floodplain fill, including in the 500-year zone.
Traffic and wetland reviews must be completed before any drainage approval is valid.
Campaign finance disclosures for Montgomery in Motion should be made public before the bond election.
County and agency leaders must publicly acknowledge that this project is not approved.
The people of Montgomery County deserve flood-resilient development, honest governance, and responsible fiscal stewardship. As it stands, this project and its supporting bond failed on all three counts.
Letter from Montgomery County Engineering objecting to Ryko’s preliminary drainage study on 6/18/24. “Given both the history of this development and a sincere concern for the safety of the public, I can in no way approve this primary drainage study nor should anyone as the risk is too high.”
A letter from Montgomery County Engineering on 7/23/24, rescinding the previous letter (without explanation) that objected to the drainage study.
Draft of a 10/25/24 letter from Chris Bennett of Harris County Flood Control to Daryl Hahn, Harris County Engineering’s Director of Permits. Letter states, “HCFCD review is limited to the proposed Spring Creek Bridge only.” It also clearly stated that additional permits, plans and studies were needed.
It remains to be seen whether we learned anything from the Woodridge Village experience.
Anonymous letter posted by Bob Rehak on 4/25/25
2796 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Ryko-Land.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2025-04-25 16:32:482025-05-06 14:08:27Lengthy Catalog of Concerns about Proposed Ryko Development
4/24/25 – My weird nephew Izzy called again this morning. He was all atwitter about Harris County’s new Climate-Justice Plan adopted by Commissioner’s Court on 4/10/25. And he could barely contain his excitement.
The Phone Call from Nephew Izzy
“They did it, Uncle Bob. They really, finally done did it?”
“Did what, Izzy?”
“We finally gonna get some climate justice, Uncle Bob.”
“I didn’t know climate broke the law, Izzy.”
“Oh, Uncle Bob! Justice is just a word they tag onto things they want.”
“What do they want, Izzy?”
“For starters, Uncle Bob, a carbon tax.”
“But Izzy, you can barely afford to put gas in that 1974 Lincoln of yours as it is.”
“I hadn’t thought of that, Uncle Bob. Maybe they’ll buy me a new ride. It’s getting hard to find parts for the Lincoln nowadays. Junkyards hardly carry dem anymore.”
“What else does the climate-justice plan do, Izzy?”
“They gonna make it so you can check out gardening tools at libraries.”
“That would mean you have to work, Izzy.”
“But think of all the things I could grow, Uncle Bob.”
“Cheetos don’t grow in gardens, Izzy.”
“They don’t?”
“They don’t.”
Brightening… “Well, they gonna make solar panels easier to get, Uncle Bob!”
“Where will you put them, Izzy? You live in an apartment.”
“Well, I could stick one in my window…”
“And do what with it?”
“Hook it up to my deep frier.”
“You got me there, Izzy. I’m all for sustainable fried chicken.”
Hair Gone Wild
“You know the beauty of climate justice, Uncle Bob?”
“No.”
“You can plug just about anything into it.”
“I can see that, Izzy.”
“Yeah, Lina Hidalgo might finally get some hair justice.”
“What do you mean?”
“You know how her hair always be shootin’ out all over the place from Houston’s humidity?”
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo voted for the new Climate Justice Plan.
“Hmmmm, yesssss?”
“I look that way, too, sometimes when I wake up. I sure could use some hair justice myself.”
“Personally, Izzy. I’d settle for some good, old-fashioned criminal justice. You know…keep the thieves, murderers and rapists in jail…that kind of stuff.”
“Geez, Uncle Bob. You’re so old fashioned. That went out with the Nineties.”
“Look, Izzy. Is climate justice going to make you safer from hurricanes?”
“I heard they might spend some of the extra tax money to fix flooding, Uncle Bob.”
“Where? Behind Rodney Ellis’ house?”
“Who’s Rodney Ellis, Uncle Bob?”
“He’s the guy trying to take your tax dollars, Izzy.”
“I can’t afford no more deductions from my pay check, Uncle Bob. I barely got change left over for them cheesy fries at Burger King.”
“Case closed, Izzy.”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/24/25
2795 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20230524-Hicaldo-Hair.jpg?fit=1200%2C797&ssl=17971200adminadmin2025-04-24 15:30:582025-04-26 09:30:13County’s Climate-Justice Plan Gets Weird Nephew Izzy All Excited
4/23/25 – At a Town Hall meeting on 4/14/25, Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler implied that Harris County had “approved” a proposed 5,500 acre Ryko floodplain development in MoCo. It did not.
Wheeler, who is newly elected, likely misunderstood the nuances of reports and the outcome of meetings his predecessor held.
Documents Clear Up Misunderstanding
Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) and Harris County Engineering did meet with the developer. They reviewed the developer’s preliminary drainage impact analysis when James Noack was the MoCo Precinct 3 Commissioner.
But Harris County did not approve anything in Montgomery County. That includes the development. They didn’t even review a complete drainage impact analysis.
Harris County only issued a “Letter of No Objection” to a portion of a preliminary study that concerned a bridge across Spring Creek.
Moreover, the letter and other associated documents made it clear that “not objecting” was conditional.
Engineers clearly labelled the Drainage Impact Analysis as “Preliminary.” HCFCD requested many supporting documents before it could make a final determination. Those requests included a geotechnical report (soil survey), site plans and a U.S. Army Corps permit (to name just three).
Such pre-development meetings help engineers, developers and regulators scope out the concerns of each other at an early stage before they invest thousands of hours in a project.
What Wheeler Said
Wheeler implied that Harris County had approved Ryko’s drainage impact analysis. And he implied that the approval covered the whole development which lies entirely in Montgomery County.
The purpose of Wheeler’s Town Hall Meeting was to talk about Montgomery County’s 2025 road bond and the Townsen Blvd. project within it, that ran through Ryko’s proposed development.
At one point, Wheeler said, “I don’t want to get too far in the weeds on the water portion of it (meaning flooding). … But I will tell you, they (Ryko) did submit a drainage impact analysis to the county. They also submitted it to Harris County. Harris County has already approved it.“
That didn’t sound right. So, I checked.
What Harris County Said
The highly technical, preliminary drainage analysis covered both the development and a bridge into Harris County. That may have added to Wheeler’s confusion.
Harris County says that it does NOT approve development plans in other counties.
Harris County DID issue a “Letter of No Objection” to the Harris County portion of the proposed bridge over Spring Creek.
Harris County Engineering and HCFCD provided four documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. They show definitively what Harris Country regulators saw when and how they responded. They include:
A 2/27/23 conference report of a “pre-project” meeting between Ryko, its engineers, and the regulators. HCFCD communicated its concerns about the Harris County portion of the bridge project, potential downstream impacts, and hydrology models to be used in the final drainage impact analysis.
The draft of a 10/25/24 letter from Chris Bennett of Harris County Flood Control to Daryl Hahn, Harris County Engineering’s Director of Permits. The letter clearly states, “HCFCD review is limited to the proposed Spring Creek Bridge only.” It also clearly stated that additional permits, plans and studies were needed.
A 4/17/25 email from Emily Woodell, HCFCD Chief External Affairs Officer. She stated, “Our organization does not conduct development reviews for compliance with the requirements of other agencies or jurisdictions. In this case, … it appears the only element reviewed by the Flood Control District was an analysis related to the proposed bridge crossing.” Woodell further stated that “to date” Ryko had never submitted any plans for the development itself to HCFCD for review.
Ryko property outlined in red. Floodways and floodplains in shades of blue.From preliminary drainage impact study.
HCFCD’s letter also made it clear that they had not checked all of the 272 pages in the drainage impact analysis. At that point, they were simply taking the word of licensed professional engineers hired by the developer.
No Response Yet from Montgomery County Engineering
I also submitted a FOIA request to Montgomery County Engineering for their copies of the developer’s construction plans and a more recent drainage impact analysis. To date, they have not responded.
Hilarious Mistake in Drainage Impact Analysis
The preliminary drainage impact study submitted by Woolpert Engineering on behalf of Ryko contains a hilarious mistake in the second sentence of the Executive Summary. The engineers say the development lies east of 59; it’s west.
To me, that calls for third-party engineers to dive deeper into the drainage impact study. No telling what else they might find.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/23/25
2794 Days Since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250423-Ryko-DIA-Floodplains-.jpg?fit=1100%2C704&ssl=17041100adminadmin2025-04-23 17:55:082025-04-25 14:47:55Harris County Did NOT Approve Ryko Development
4/22/25 – HCFCD has added Microsoft Power BI capabilities to its website. They let users interactively explore and visualize HCFCD spending by watershed. Data goes back to the start of the 2018 Flood Bond. Users can even sort spending data by:
Source of funds (Bond, district taxes, or partners)
Bond Project ID
Calendar year and quarter
Watershed
Project group
Funding source
Project stage
Type of activity
See below.
Total HCFCD spending by watershed between start of flood bond and end of Q1 2025
Using those “filters” on the left-hand side of the page instantly reconfigures two charts:
Watersheds in a bar graph, rank ordered by selected filters (shown above)
Incremental and cumulative spending over time using selected filter(s) (shown below).
The BI in Power BI stands for Business Intelligence. It’s an extremely powerful and fast way to explore massive data sets online.
By “right clicking” on a selection on a PC (or “control clicking” on a Mac), users can pull up tabular breakdowns of the data with exact amounts using any variables they select. From there, they can drill up or down in the data.
Analysis that used to take weeks can now be done in seconds.
Bob Rehak
Thank you Microsoft and thank you HCFCD.
Differences Between New and Previous Visualizations
There is one huge difference between the reports I have been compiling from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and the Microsoft Power BI information. I tracked HCFCD spending from Hurricane Harvey starting in the fourth quarter of 2017. The Power BI data starts after voters approved the flood bond a year AFTER Harvey.
Instead of making FOIA requests each quarter, I plan to use this data from now on. There’s a little less of it. But the improvement in convenience will make analysis much faster.
What Latest Data Shows
Several things jump out at you when you first come to the new HCFCD spending page. Since Q3 2018:
HCFCD has spent more than twice as much on County-Wide Projects (which include subdivision drainage projects) as it has on any single watershed.
More than half of all spending has gone to County-Wide Projects and four watersheds: Cypress Creek, Brays Bayou, White Oak Bayou and Greens Bayou.
The overall spending rate is now 39% of what it was at the peak of activity in 2020. Compare the next two screen captures.
Spending for 2020 by project phase.Spending through Q1 2025 by project phase.
Note: the graphs above make the spending drop look even sharper than it is. Remember the second graph shows only one quarter of spending for 2025 versus whole-year spending for other years.
To calculate 39%, I annualized Q1 2025 spending. 2024, the last full year of spending, is down 54% compared to 2020.
Drilling down a little bit in the data, I also learned that, to date, the San Jacinto watershed (the County’s largest) has had only $18 million invested in construction of flood-mitigation improvements. That’s less than a fifth of what the top four dollar getters have received.
When looking at construction spending only, the entire San Jacinto Watershed has received only $18 million out of $900 million spent by HCFCD since Harvey.
That’s less than 2% of the spending that actually reduces flooding. Other investments in the watershed have primarily been studies that talk about plans for improvements without really making them.
Where to Find Power BI Graphs, Tables
The Microsoft Power BI tables are buried on the HCFCD site. To see them, you click on:
The Activity Page, which contains only one sentence of copy.
I asked HCFCD why the page is buried. They responded that the page has only been up for about a month and that they are still making some usability tweaks before advertising it widely.
Below are some other things I would do to improve the user experience.
Wish List
While much more user friendly than an Excel spreadsheet, the HCFCD’s Power BI page could benefit from some instructions. For instance, there are no instructions on how to find the underlying data (right- or control-clicking).
Q1 2025 data revealed by control-clicking on the Q1 2025 line in the second Incremental Spending graph above.
And through experimentation, I learned that “command clicking” on a Mac lets you select multiple variables in a filter, i.e., multiple watersheds, years, etc.
HCFCD used to be able to sort this data by precinct.
They also have information about the low-to-moderate income populations in each watershed and the amount of damage per watershed in various storms. But that sorting option isn’t available either.
A cross-link to project descriptions so that users can easily select projects of interest to them would also help. Right now, they’re asked to choose from a long list of numbers that are meaningless to most people. I had to open the project list archived on ReduceFlooding to identify what was what. It sure would be helpful to include that data, too.
Making data readily available has a way of anchoring political debates in reality. And that, in my humble opinion, is a valuable thing. It creates a data-driven culture that brings people together rather than having them argue over rumors.
4/20/25 – There are far more flood-risk-reduction proposals (studies, projects and strategies) in Texas’ first state flood plan than funds to finance them.
Tressa Olsen, Assistant Director of Flood Planning for the Texas Water Development Board, spoke about the plan at a meeting of the Society of American Military Engineers on 4/14/25.
TWDB’s Assistant Director of Flood Planning, Tressa Olsen.
Altogether, the 15 regional flood planning groups in the state identified approximately 5,000 proposals with a combined price tag of $54.5 billion. But, she says, the legislature has allocated only approximately $1.4 billion since 2019 for them.
Page 13 from Olsen’s presentation on state flood plan. To see her entire presentation, click here.
That underscores the need for better floodplain management practices that can prevent rather than correct flooding problems – especially in the San Jacinto watershed. After more flood issues become apparent in the next big storm, it may take generations and billions of dollars to remediate them.
Right now, 14 bills pending in the state legislature mention the state’s Flood Infrastructure Fund. But most of those bills focus on prioritizing projects. Not one bill establishes a steady income stream for the Fund which helps finance mitigation projects in the State Flood Plan.
Proposed Ryko Development Makes Case For Intensive Scrutiny
Regardless, every month, it seems more and more developments are moving into floodplains and closer to rivers. Major storms can turn those rivers and streams into raging torrents that destroy homes and lives.
Last week, I focused on the proposed Ryko development immediately west of Kingwood in Montgomery County.
The company hopes to build 7,000 homes on 5,500 flood-prone acres near the confluence of Spring Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork.
Ryko’s land lies within the area bounded by Spring Creek (left) and the San Jacinto West Fork (right).
North of Ryko’s land, about halfway to the Grand Parkway and on property 30 feet higher than the confluence, is an existing subdivision called Bender’s Landing Estates. (See top of map below.) One resident told me that 53 homes there flooded during Harvey.
So, Ryko’s property below Benders Landing has even higher flood risk. See red outline superimposed over FEMA’s map below.
Ryko property bounded by red. Cross-hatched = floodway. Aqua = 1% annual chance. Brown = .2% annual chance.The Houston area has had four .2% annual chance floods in the last 10 years.
As the Federal government scales back disaster relief and flood mitigation assistance, and as the State doesn’t step in to provide steady funding for mitigation efforts in the State Flood Plan, the responsibility to prevent flooding will increasingly fall onto the shoulders of local officials.
But that will require local officials to update and integrate data on their own. FEMA is already years behind schedule in releasing new flood maps for the Houston region.
Elevation Data Acquired in 1988
“Base Flood Elevation” in engineer-speak is the expected height of a 1% annual-chance (100-year) flood. FEMA provides a Base-Flood-Elevation Viewer that estimates the height above ground for both 1% and .2% Annual Chance (500-year) Floods.
However, FEMA uses elevation data acquired in 1988 to estimate the height of base floods above ground level.
A whole page in FEMA’s Base-Flood-Elevation estimates discusses disclaimers. “Everyone is at risk,” it says. “The chances of experiencing a flood can vary due to unevaluated conditions, such as the unstudied effects of community growth and development or intense storms uncharacteristic to historical trends.”
Extreme Risk Requires Extreme Caution
FEMA’s reports even suggest actions homeowners can take to reduce their flood risk and insurance premiums, such as elevating slabs. But by how much? FEMA doesn’t say. And elevation can be a shifting target.
One of the “unevaluated conditions and unstudied effects of community growth” is subsidence.
Harris-Galveston Subsidence District says subsidence at a gage next to Ryko’s property averages .73 inches per year due to groundwater withdrawal. Adding 7000 new homes would accelerate subsidence.
0.73 inches per year translates to approximately two feet of sinking during a 30-year mortgage. And that’s twice as much as the freeboard factor (safety margin) used to establish the elevation of foundations above expected floods in Montgomery County.
MoCo only requires foundations of new homes to be one foot above the base flood elevation (100-year floodplain), And we’ve had four 500-year floods in the area in the last 10-years. The image below shows what one of those floods did to townhomes in Forest Cove about a mile downstream from Ryko’s property.
Forest Cove Townhome destroyed by Harvey.
Montgomery County Commissioners beware!
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/21/25
2792 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250414-DSC_1999.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2025-04-21 17:37:022025-04-21 22:48:08Far More Proposals in State Flood Plan Than Funds For Them
4/19/25 – Ryko, a development company, has announced plans to build 7,000 new homes in an environmentally sensitive, flood-prone area immediately west of Kingwood. Moreover, the area already experiences the highest subsidence in the north Houston region.
Residents in the area currently use groundwater. Assuming an average household size of 2.5 people, Ryko would add 17,500 new residents to the area. That could accelerate declines in groundwater levels and increase subsidence.
Reviewing the Subsidence District’s latest annual report revealed that the issue at this one reporting station is part of a larger problem. And the problem is very bad in southern Montgomery County.
Impacts of Subsidence
I have been posting about the issue for five-plus years. Subsidence happens too slowly to notice in most cases. But over time, it can be very disruptive:
Excessive groundwater withdrawals can create bowls in the landscape that alter the gradient of rivers and streams. That can increase local flooding. For instance, when land at the county line sinks faster than land at the Lake Houston Dam, it tilts the lake toward the county line.
Projected subsidence rates upstream could erase your freeboard factor (the height at which your home was built above the 100-year floodplain). That would increase your flood risk.
Subsidence can also crack pipelines, storm sewers, and pavement.
Uneven settling can cause your doors and windows to stick; crack foundations; split wallboard; and break tile.
Subsidence can also trigger long-dormant geologic faults.
Front steps of Woodland’s homeowner Dr. Mark Meinrath in 1992 and 2014. Part of Meinrath’s home straddles a fault which subsidence triggered. Relative to the rest of his house, these front steps dropped 9.9 inches in 22 years.
For more examples of the impacts of subsidence in the north Houston area, visit StopOurSinking.com, a site developed by a Woodlands resident. There, subsidence has triggered faults and flooded multi-million-dollar homes through the “bowl effect.”
High Cost of a Little Flooding
Getting even an inch of water in your home can be very costly. According to FEMA, just 1 inch of floodwater in an average 2,000 square foot home can cost $10,000 to $20,000 to repair.
Higher-end finishes, such as wood floors, built-in cabinetry, granite, etc., can push those estimates past $25,000.
Why is one inch so expensive?
Flooring usually needs to be completely replaced (carpet, wood, sometimes even tile if the water gets underneath).
Baseboards and lower drywall (often up to 2 feet) usually must be cut out and replaced.
Insulation in walls may need replacing if water wicks up.
Cabinet bases and interior doors are often ruined.
Appliances like washers, dryers, and even low-mounted electrical outlets might be affected.
Mold prevention requires fast and sometimes professional drying and remediation.
In homes larger than 2,000 square feet, the cost would go up proportionately. For instance, FEMA estimates repair costs for a 3,000 square foot home to be 50% greater – in the $15,000 – $30,000+ range.
Disasters/accidents are rarely caused by one thing. They usually result from a combination of factors eroding margins of safety.
For instance, the risk of a driving accident increases when you’re tired, it’s dark and the pavement is wet. That’s why it’s important to pay attention to little things that can degrade your margin of safety. They may not be so little in the next big storm.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/19/2025
2790 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Subsidence-in-Ryko-Area-copy-scaled-e1745084712556.jpg?fit=1100%2C628&ssl=16281100adminadmin2025-04-19 12:57:472025-04-21 09:50:29Building 7,000 Homes Here Would Accelerate Subsidence
4/18/25 – Just upstream from the Humble/Kingwood Area, residents of Benders Landing Estates in Montgomery County frequently spot bald eagles flying overhead and resting in trees adjacent to 5,500 acres that Ryko is trying to develop for 7,000 homes.
Frequent Eagle Sightings Suggest Nearby Nests
Susan Gillespie Marrero of Benders Landing Estates, near the Ryko property, sent me video of two bald eagles landing in a tree outside her window.
Video of eagles in back yard of Susan Gillespie Marreroin Benders Landing Estates.
Such sightings are reportedly common in that area. Marrero also sent me dozens of postings by neighbors on a community website. See example below.
One of more than two dozen social media posts sent by Marreroshowing bald eagle sightings in/near the Ryko land.
Ryko’s property is one of the last areas in the north Houston region to be developed because of frequent flooding. Much of the area is covered by wetlands and swamps that make excellent habitat for wildlife. They also make excellent hunting grounds for the eagles. The Ryko property has likely become an eagle refuge.
Eagles No Longer Listed as Endangered, but Still Protected
Bald eagles, America’s official national symbol, were once listed as a threatened and endangered species, primarily due to habitat loss, hunting and pesticides.
But their numbers have recovered in recent years. In 1995, they were reclassified from endangered to threatened. And in 2007, they were removed entirely from the federal Endangered Species List.
However, they are still protected under other laws, such as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. And it is still illegal to harm or interfere with them or their nests without specific federal permission. Violation carries stiff fines and even jail time.
Building Near Eagles Adds Significant Time, Cost, Risk
Permit approvals can reportedly add months or even years to a construction project when eagles are involved. You must apply for an eagle permit if your project might:
Disturb an active bald or golden eagle nest (especially during nesting season: usually late winter through summer)
Destroy or remove a nest (even an inactive one)
Causerepeateddisturbances nearby (i.e., with heavy equipment)
Significantly alter eagle habitat (like clearing mature trees used for nesting or roosting)
Even if you don’t directly destroy a nest, frequent loud noise or heavy vehicle movement near an active nest can cause developers trouble under the law.
Moreover, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service often requires seasonal restrictions, such as:
No clearing, grading, or major disturbance within a certain distance of a nest during nesting season.
Sometimes, developers are told to wait until after chicks fledge (late summer) before starting heavy work.
Buffer zones are often required — for bald eagles, this can range from 660 feet to over 1/2 mile, depending on sight lines and level of disturbance.
How Developers Usually Handle It
If a development is near eagle habitat, developers usually hire a qualified wildlife biologist early to survey for nests.
Next, they avoid and minimize impacts first by making site plan changes. If that is not possible, they apply for a permit.
Permits can take 6-12 months, so that needs to be factored into project timelines.
Even with a permit, mitigation may be required, such as
Planting new trees.
Creating conservation easements.
Donating to eagle habitat funds.
Bottom line: If eagles are nearby, developers must avoid nests. Reportedly, it’s much easier and cheaper than trying to work through the permit process.
This could be an issue for Ryko as it seeks to build 7,000 homes and a four-lane thoroughfare stretching to Spring Creek.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/18/25
2789 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250418-Ryko-Property-copy.jpg?fit=1100%2C605&ssl=16051100adminadmin2025-04-18 18:32:582025-04-23 12:44:55Bald Eagles Live Where Developer Wants to Build 7,000 Homes
4/17/2025 – Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler’s office says he is taking the controversial Townsen Blvd. extension off of the County’s 2025 Road Bond. However, as of 4 P.M. this afternoon, the county’s website does not yet reflect the deletion.
Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler addressing Town Hall meeting about Townsen Blvd. and the 2025 MoCo Road Bond.
The change comes after a Town Hall meeting last night at which the commissioner heard a crowd of angry residents express their concerns about the Townsen Blvd. extension. The extension would open up 5,500 flood-prone acres, where a developer plans to build 7,000 homes.
No one spoke in favor of the road project, which includes three segments.
The cancellation of the County’s portion of the project could make it more difficult for a private developer to build a separate segment beyond that. The developer would have no thoroughfare to connect to.
Contractually, that separate segment must be completed by the end of 2030 if the developer hopes to get reimbursed $27 million from County tax revenues for building the road.
Road Plans Included Three Separate Segments
At the start of the meeting Wheeler explained that the entire road, as originally conceived, stretched from the Grand Parkway to Spring Creek on the south in three discrete segments. A bridge over Spring Creek was to have connected the Montgomery County portion of Townsen to the Harris County portion of Townsen Blvd.
Going into last night’s meeting, financing of the second segment (dotted green line) was to have come from Montgomery County’s 2025 Road Bond.
The third segment (shown in red) was to have been financed through a “381 Agreement” between Ryko, Montgomery County and several utility districts.
Controversy Surrounding 381 Agreement
Under a Texas 381 Agreement, if a developer builds a road and developments around it, the county reimburses the developer for their expenses. That reimbursement comes out of future tax revenues from the new residents. Such agreements encourage economic development.
According to Wheeler, his predecessor, James Noack, initially signed the 381 agreement with Ryko in 2018. The contract required them to complete the road by the end of 2027. But they still have not started construction, jeopardizing that deadline.
So, before Noack left office at the end of 2024, he signed an agreement to extend the deadline to 2030. That gave the developer three more years.
But Noack pushed the deadline extension through Commissioners Court on a “consent agenda.” Here’s where the plot thickens. Typically, consent agendas are reserved for non-controversial items, such as fixing a pothole.
However, the portion of the road covered by this 381 agreement was and is controversial for several reasons.
Last night, residents expressed concerns about decreases in property values along with increases in crime, traffic, flooding, and taxes. Residents also worried about the impacts on traffic safety and area schools.
This deal is very controversial and according to Wheeler should never have gone on the consent agenda.
Deadline Extension Also Fundamentally Changed Developer’s Obligation
Wheeler also pointed out that the deadline extension fundamentally changed the deal. The original agreement obligated Ryko to build the bridge over Spring Creek. However, the three-year deadline extension obligates them only to build the road – not the bridge. He also said the county has no plans to build that bridge, nor is it in the 2025 Road Bond.
Wheeler explained he had little to no power to stop the road or the agreement. “You cannot deny access to a public right of way to a property owner,” said Wheeler. But residents complained nonetheless.
Wheeler said that he met with Ryko and tried to buy the land from them. But he said they wanted “nine figures.” That would be somewhere north of $100,000,000 for 5,500 acres. And that would make the price per acre a whopping $18,000…for land that is largely in a floodplain and pockmarked with wetlands.
The land sits at the tip of a funnel where the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek and Cypress Creek all come together. FEMA’s flood map below shows just how flood prone the area is.
Ryko and its partner, Pacific-Indio Properties, own the land bounded by red box. Cross-hatched = floodway. Aqua = 100-year floodplain. Brown = 500-year floodplain.
Wheeler also said that Harris County Flood Control previously offered to buy 1,800 acres of Ryko’s land – the portions closest to the West Fork and Spring Creek. However, the developer wanted $15 million. Flood Control couldn’t afford it. The land would have cost more than $8,000 per acre.
County commissioners on both sides of Spring Creek (Wheeler and Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey), have said publicly that they would not support building a bridge over Spring Creek.
So Ryko is now battling connectivity issues to its north and south. That will limit the appeal of any developments built there. And that’s probably a good thing.
The Case for Caution
As the Federal Government reduces support for flood-mitigation and disaster relief, the financial burden will fall increasingly onto states, counties and cities to do the job by themselves. And the lowest cost way to do that is by preserving land along bayous, creeks and rivers. Prevention is always cheaper than correction.
Taking that center portion of the Townsen Blvd. extension off the Montgomery County road bond won’t prevent Ryko from developing its land. But it could make it more difficult. And, in my opinion, that is a step in the right direction.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/17/2025
2788 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250416-DSC_2187.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2025-04-17 16:14:372025-04-17 18:12:08MoCo Commissioner Taking Townsen Blvd. Extension Off 2025 Road Bond
