News Archives - Page 4 of 284

How Flood Protection Can Increase Consequences of Large Floods

Academic research into flooding suggests that “Flood protection tends to reduce small floods, but increases the consequences of rare, large floods.” This is one of the central ideas in modern flood-risk management.

It does not mean that flood-control projects are bad. Rather, it describes an unintended sociological feedback loop that can emerge over the long term, if structural protection is not paired with prudent land-use planning.

The concept traces back to the work of Gilbert F. White in 1945 and has been expanded by researchers such as Raymond J. Burby, Gilberto Di Baldassarre, and others. It is commonly referred to as the levee effect or the safe-development paradox. Simply stated, flood-risk-reduction projects can lull people into a false sense of security.

The Basic Mechanism

The process unfolds over decades rather than years. It follows these steps:

Flood protection is built…
Frequent flooding declines…
Confidence increases…
More homes, businesses and infrastructure are built…
Property values rise…
A flood larger than the “design event” (i.e., the 100-year flood) occurs…
Communities experience much greater losses than would have occurred decades earlier.

Structural flood protection often reduces flood frequency. However, it encourages much more development behind the protection, so exposure increases dramatically. Then, when an event exceeds the design capacity, total losses can be much larger than before.

Why This Happens

Here’s an example. Imagine an area that floods every five years.

Initially, only 100 homes might occupy the area because of flood frequency.

A moderate flood might damage 50 homes.
Then, a levee is built to withstand the 100-year flood.

For the next 30 years:

No floods occur.
Confidence grows.
The area now contains:
- 5,000 homes
- Schools
- Hospitals
- Shopping centers
- Utilities.

Then a 500-year flood overtops the levee.

The levee did exactly what it was designed to do for decades. But because so much development accumulated behind it, the rare failure produces vastly greater losses than would have occurred before the levee existed.

That is the paradox.

Example: New Orleans and Katrina

Perhaps the world’s best-known example is New Orleans during Katrina.

For decades, extensive levees reduced frequent flooding. Large areas below sea level became heavily urbanized. And population and infrastructure expanded behind the levee system.

When Hurricane Katrina exceeded parts of the system’s design, multiple levees failed. Approximately 80% of New Orleans flooded. More than 1,800 people died. Economic losses exceeded $100 billion.

Researchers argue that the levees enabled much greater development in areas that remained vulnerable to catastrophic flooding if protection was exceeded.

The Implication for Houston and the San Jacinto Basin

This idea has direct relevance to the Lake Houston Area and the San Jacinto River Basin.

Suppose all the projects proposed after Harvey (additional upstream detention, optimized gate operations on Lake Conroe, channel conveyance improvements, more floodgates for Lake Houston, etc.) are implemented and reduce the probability of flooding from moderate storms.

However, they could create a widespread perception that “This land is now safe.” And that perception could lead to substantial new development in flood-prone portions of the basin over several decades such as the 5,300 acre Scarborough property at the confluence of the West Fork and Spring Creek.

Scarborough wetlands — *Wetlands on Scarborough property*

Exposure increases. Property values increase. Infrastructure becomes more concentrated.

Then, when an event exceeds the protection system — just as Harvey exceeded many historical design assumptions — the total losses may be larger than they otherwise would have been.

This is precisely why many modern flood-risk experts argue that structural protection must be paired with land-use management rather than viewed as a substitute for it. But “land use management” is fightin’ words in Houston.

Breaking the Cycle

The encouraging news is that the research also points to ways to avoid the paradox. The most commonly recommended strategies are:

Preserve portions of the natural floodplain instead of developing every protected acre.
Use regional detention and natural storage to reduce flood peaks.
Educate home buyers about the limits of flood protection.
Require resilient construction (elevated structures, floodproofing) even behind levees or reservoirs.
Manage development at the watershed scale, not just parcel by parcel.

Why This is Especially Relevant to the San Jacinto

This concept is particularly important for the San Jacinto basin because it reframes the objective of the SJRA’s Joint Reservoir Operations Study.

The study’s success should not be measured solely by whether it lowers flood stages by a few inches. It should also include:

Strong warnings about the safe development paradox
Education about design assumptions for flooding, i.e., the height of foundations above the 100-year flood level.

Said another way, the study should discourage development that eventually erases any gains – one of the central themes in contemporary flood-risk research.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/5/2026

3232 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.

10 Ways Political Fragmentation Can Increase Flood Risk

7/2/26 – Political fragmentation can increase flood risk many ways. It is one of the least appreciated, but most significant factors in flooding – particularly in rapidly urbanizing watersheds like the San Jacinto River Basin.

Floodwater doesn’t respect jurisdictional boundaries. When many different jurisdictions make drainage decisions independently, it rarely, if ever, optimizes results. Here are 10 reasons why.

1. Upstream Communities Often Don’t Bear Downstream Costs They Create

A city or county may approve new development because it receives the tax revenue while the flood impacts occur miles away. For example:

Community A approves thousands of acres of development.
Runoff increases.
The additional water flows into Community B.
Community B pays for larger channels, detention basins, buyouts, and disaster recovery.

The economic incentives are misaligned. Individual interest trumps wider interest.

2. Different Regulations Create Weak Links

When designing flood infrastructure, one county may require:

Atlas 14 rainfall
Generous detention
“No net fill” in floodplains
Stricter erosion controls.

But a neighboring county may require much less.

Developers naturally gravitate toward the least restrictive jurisdiction.

The result is that runoff is generated where regulation is weakest. But that affects everyone downstream.

This has long been an issue between portions of rapidly growing counties surrounding Houston, where drainage criteria have historically differed.

3. Development is Approved One Project at a Time

Each subdivision may demonstrate “No adverse impact from this development.” And that may be technically true for that individual project. But no one evaluates:

500 developments together
Cumulative increases in runoff
Synchronized flood peaks stacking on top of each other
Long-term watershed change.

Thousands of individually compliant projects can collectively overwhelm streams.

This is sometimes called the “Death by a Thousand Cuts” problem.

4. Transportation Agencies Optimize Roads – Not Watersheds

Road departments may prioritize:

Minimizing bridge costs
Minimizing culvert costs
Reducing construction expenses.

Flood managers may want:

Larger openings under bridges
Fewer hydraulic bottlenecks
Preservation of natural floodways.

If transportation and flood agencies are not coordinated, roads can become unintended dams during major floods.

East Fork Floods — *FM2090 at East Fork on May 1, 2024. The opening for the bridge is in the trees on the upper right.*

5. Reservoir Operators May Have Different Missions

Sub-watersheds often include reservoirs managed by different organizations and/or for different purposes. For instance, one reservoir may prioritize water supply while another prioritizes flood control or recreation.

Without coordinated operating plans, releases can unintentionally compound downstream flooding. This has been discussed extensively regarding operations of Lake Conroe and Lake Houston, where coordinated releases can substantially influence downstream flood peaks.

The 400,000 CFS going over the Lake Houston Dam during Harvey included 80,000 CFS from Lake Conroe. It created a wall of water 11 feet high. The volume was five times more than the amount of water going over Niagra Falls on an average day.

6. Funding Responsibilities are Fragmented

One agency may pay for channel improvements, while others pay for maintenance, detention, environmental mitigation, and/or emergency response.

Projects that benefit everyone may stall because no single organization is responsible for paying for them. Coordination among agencies with different staffing, funding, and priorities can delay projects years. Economists call this a “collective action problem.”

For instance, according to Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD), only half of the Taylor Gully/Woodridge project has started because the Texas Water Development Board has reportedly not yet approved the Taylor Gully portion.

Meanwhile, a critical HUD funding deadline is fast approaching that may cost Harris County hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s an HCFCD project. But City of Houston bridges are involved.

Taylor Gully Flooding May 7 2019 — *School bus trying to go over Taylor Gully on the Rustling Elms bridge on May 7, 2019.*

Aligning all these dominos takes years, especially when they involve grants from multiple agencies.

7. Floodplain Mapping Evolves at Different Speeds

One jurisdiction may adopt updated flood maps quickly while a neighboring jurisdiction may continue using older maps.

This means development can continue under outdated assumptions upstream while downstream communities build to newer, more conservative standards.

Again, the Taylor Gully/Woodridge project provides an excellent example. HCFCD contractors are now excavating dirt for a Woodridge Detention Basin. Some of that dirt is being hauled to a new development along Dry Creek at FM1485 in Montgomery County.

Technically, the dirt is being deposited outside the 100-year floodplain at that location, per HCFCD standards. But the Montgomery County floodplain map is still based on pre-Harvey (2014) data.

*Where Woodridge dirt is going. Map last updated in 2014 before Harvey.* *From FEMA Flood Hazard Layer Viewer.*

*Placement area for a portion of dirt excavated from Woodridge*, *shown in red circle above* *near Dry Creek.*

Are we paying to solve a flood problem…or to relocate it?

8. Data are Often Not Shared

As we saw above, jurisdictions frequently use different:

Hydraulic models
Rainfall assumptions
LiDAR vintages
Land-use projections
Software platforms

When models don’t align across jurisdictional boundaries, flood analyses can become inconsistent.

9. Maintenance Responsibilities are Divided

Who:

Removes sediment?
Clears fallen trees?
Maintains detention ponds?
Repairs eroded channels?

If responsibility changes repeatedly across political boundaries, maintenance gaps develop that reduce channel capacity.

10. Emergency Response Becomes Harder

During large floods:

Counties
Cities
Drainage districts
River authorities
State agencies
Federal agencies

…must all coordinate their activities.

If communication is poor, evacuations, road closures, reservoir operations, and recovery efforts become less efficient.

The Cumulative Effect

Political fragmentation doesn’t usually create flooding by itself. Instead, it gradually amplifies flood risk by allowing many small decisions to accumulate or be deferred.

Fragmented decision	Watershed consequence
Different detention rules	More runoff
Different floodplain rules	More development in hazardous areas
Independent land-use decisions	Higher peak flows
Separate infrastructure planning	Hydraulic bottlenecks
Different maintenance standards	Reduced conveyance
Independent reservoir operations	Poorer timing of releases
Separate funding	Delayed mitigation projects

Each individual decision may appear reasonable within one jurisdiction. Collectively, they can increase both the frequency and severity of flooding across the river basin.

Why This Matters in the San Jacinto River Basin

The San Jacinto River watershed illustrates many of these challenges. It spans multiple counties and municipalities with varying drainage standards, development regulations, and infrastructure priorities.

Rapid upstream growth can alter runoff patterns that affect downstream communities, such as the Lake Houston Area. Indeed, it affects all of Houston and Harris County.

At the same time, reservoir operations, floodplain management, and mitigation investments are divided among numerous local, regional, state, and federal entities. Coordinating those decisions across jurisdictional boundaries is often as challenging as the engineering itself.

Many watershed professionals therefore advocate managing flood risk at the “watershed scale” rather than at the city or county scale.

That approach emphasizes common hydrologic assumptions, coordinated land-use planning, cumulative-impact analysis, shared data and models, aligned reservoir operations (where feasible), and funding mechanisms that reflect both where runoff is generated and where flood damages occur.

It does not eliminate flooding, but it can substantially reduce the extent to which fragmented governance makes floods worse.

In the 2025 Texas legislature, Representatives Paul, Cunningham, DeAyala, and Swanson authored a bill (HB2068) to expand HCFCD gradually throughout the river basin. However it was left pending in committee after HCFCD Executive Director Tina Petersen and Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia testified against it. Let’s hope it can go farther next year with new leaders.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/3/2026 with the help of ChatGPT for research.

3230 Days since Hurricane Harvey

First in a Series: How Development Lifecycles Affect Flood Risk

7/1/2026 – Urban development lifecycles follow predictable stages. Those stages help explain why and when flood risk increases. A better understanding of development lifecycles also helps inform efforts to decrease flood risk.

The Urban Land Institute (ULI) bills itself as world’s oldest and largest global network of cross-disciplinary real estate and land-use experts. They do a tremendous amount of research and education, and are widely regarded as thought leaders in their field. I asked ChatGPT to help research their reports, models and market analyses. I pulled the information below from that Chat.

High-Level Development Lifecycle Stages

ULI often describes communities – especially metro submarkets and master-planned communities – as evolving through five stages.

Stage	Description	Typical Characteristics
1. Pioneer (or Emerging)	The earliest phase when development first begins in a previously undeveloped or underutilized area.	Raw land or agricultural land transitioning to development; infrastructure just beginning; first subdivisions or projects; high perceived risk but high long-term upside.
2. Growth (or Expansion)	Rapid development and population increase as the area gains market traction.	Strong housing absorption, new commercial development, schools and services appearing, infrastructure expanding, rising land values.
3. Maturity (or Stabilization)	The community reaches build-out or near build-out; growth slows and the market stabilizes.	Established neighborhoods, stable population, full services and retail, limited vacant land, slower appreciation.
4. Decline (or Obsolescence)	Physical or economic aging begins to affect the area; investment slows and competitiveness declines.	Aging infrastructure and housing stock, reduced investment, shifting demographics, declining property values or occupancy.
5. Reinvestment / Redevelopment (or Renewal)	New capital and planning initiatives revitalize the area, beginning another cycle.	Redevelopment projects, adaptive reuse, infill development, infrastructure upgrades, demographic shifts attracting new residents.

Houston-Area Examples

A rough application of this development lifecycle model to the Houston metro area might look like:

Pioneer: far-exurban land along new highways such as the Grand Parkway, e.g., early Colony Ridge years.
Growth: areas like The Woodlands and Kingwood in the 1990s–2000s or Bridgeland in the 2010s.
Maturity: The Woodlands and Kingwood today — largely built out with stable demographics.
Decline: older first-ring suburbs with aging retail strips.
Redevelopment: Midtown Houston, East Downtown, or repurposed mall sites.

Seven-Stage Model for Evaluating Land Holdings

ULI and many master-planned community developers also use a more granular seven-stage model when evaluating large land holdings. This framework focuses less on sociology and more on capital deployment, entitlements, and absorption of lots/homes.

Stage	Name	What Happens	Key Indicators
1. Land Banking / Assembly	A developer or investor quietly accumulates large tracts of land years before development begins.	Agricultural or timber land; minimal infrastructure; low carrying costs.	Large contiguous acreage; speculation on future growth corridors.
2. Entitlement / Planning	Regulatory approvals are obtained. Master plans are designed.	Zoning changes, drainage plans, environmental studies, plats, utility agreements.	Engineering studies, infrastructure phasing plans, public hearings.
3. Horizontal Development	Major infrastructure is constructed.	Roads, drainage channels, detention ponds, utilities, grading, flood mitigation.	High capital expenditure; land converted into finished lots.
4. Builder Entry / Lot Sales	Homebuilders begin purchasing lots from the developer.	Model homes, marketing campaigns, early home construction.	First residential permits; rising lot absorption rates.
5. Absorption / Expansion	Rapid population growth and retail follow rooftops.	Schools, retail centers, churches, medical offices, parks.	Peak lot sales; fastest population growth.
6. Build-Out / Stabilization	Most developable land is used; growth slows.	Established neighborhoods, full infrastructure, mature landscaping.	Stable property values; fewer new phases.
7. Repositioning / Redevelopment	The community begins a new cycle through infill or redevelopment.	Commercial redevelopment, higher density housing, mixed-use projects.	Demographic shifts; reinvestment in aging areas.

The highest financial risk occurs during land banking and entitlement (Phases 1 and 2). And the highest profitability occurs during absorption (Phase 5), when land values accelerate.

Development often expands outward from a city center in concentric rings or waves as new highways are built.

Why Development Lifecycles Matter for Floodplain Development

In river basins like the San Jacinto, the newest development wave often occurs:

Upstream of existing urbanized areas
On cheaper land with more floodplain acreage
Before flood infrastructure is fully planned.

That timing mismatch is one reason ULI and hydrologists often warn that:

Exurban development can amplify downstream flooding if watershed-scale planning is absent.

Floodplain Discount Curve

Several ULI case studies reference a recurring phenomenon sometimes referred to as the “floodplain discount curve.” It’s not a formula as much as a market pattern observed when developers acquire large tracts in floodplains.

The idea: land value rises dramatically as uncertainty about development constraints is removed.

Conceptually, it looks like this:

Stage	Land Status	Typical Buyer	Relative Value
1. Raw Floodplain Land	Agricultural land, wetlands, sand pits, or timberland; flood risk uncertain.	Speculators, long-horizon developers, timber investors.	Lowest value
2. Regulatory Clarity	FEMA mapping, drainage rules, wetlands delineation clarified.	Land funds, institutional investors.	Value increases modestly.
3. Entitlements (i.e., Permits) Approved	Drainage plan accepted; mitigation strategy defined; plats approved.	Large developers.	Value rises significantly.
4. Infrastructure Installed	Roads, utilities, detention basins built.	Homebuilders purchasing finished lots.	Major jump in value.
5. Rooftops Arrive	Houses, schools, retail appear.	Retail developers and long-term investors.	Peak land value

A single tract can experience 20×–100× appreciation over the full lifecycle.

Developers often deliberately acquire floodplain property because it carries a risk discount that sophisticated engineering can sometimes overcome. Risks include:

Evolving FEMA, HUD and EPA regulations
Fill restrictions
Wetlands permitting
Insurance concerns
Political winds

When these risks are resolved, value re-prices rapidly. The biggest value increase usually occurs at the moment regulatory risk disappears, not when the first house is built. Developers sometimes describe this as:

“Entitlements create more value than construction.”

The Scarborough Example

This explains why developers often land bank floodplain property for 10–30 years waiting for infrastructure or regulations to change. The Scarborough land at the confluence of Spring Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork is a good example.

It also explains why turning the Scarborough land into a state park is the best way to protect it from future development.

In future posts, I will explore specifics of how these concepts have affected growth and flood risk in the Lake Houston and surrounding areas.

For the convenience of those reading this on a small screen, here is a printable PDF of the tables above.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 7/1/2026 with grateful appreciation for ULI and ChatGPT

3228 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Excavation Rate of Woodridge Detention Basin Suddenly Increases

6/30/26 – Two days after posting about the slow rate of progress on Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) Woodridge Detention Basin, the rate suddenly increased. And dramatically! But, will it be enough?

The sudden increase coincided with the start date for HCFCD’s new Executive Director Marcus Stuckett who is under pressure to accelerate operations. Stuckett must beat tight federal deadlines on a number of projects to avoid losing up to $322 million in federal funding.

New Week, New Vibe

When I visited the Woodridge site around 1PM yesterday (Monday, 6/29/26), I saw six dump trucks leaving the site within a half hour. Today, I returned twice. At 9AM, I saw five leave within a half hour. Ditto when I returned around 11. So, the rate has increased to an average of five or six loads per half hour. That’s good news.

Photos Taken 6/30/26

I’m not sure why the rate increased when it did; Stuckett’s starting day may have just been coincidence. Regardless, I’m glad the contractor finally got construction moving. See photos taken this morning.

*Woodridge Construction as of 9:19AM on 6/30/26. Note excavator working on new area (middle left).*

A truck would pull up to the excavator about every five minutes. At one point, I even witnessed a traffic jam at the site entrance on Woodland Hills.

More Improvement Needed…Even with New Rate

Given sampling error, traffic delays related to Loop 494 closure at Northpark, overtime, weather, etc., it’s still not certain whether the new rate of excavation will beat the contractual deadline. Let’s rerun the numbers using this type of dump truck to see if they’re close.

One of these trucks can carry an average of 22 cubic yards per load; that’s more than the type of truck I previously thought they were going to use.

The contractor must move a million cubic yards of dirt.
1,000,000 cubic yards ÷ 22 cubic yards/load = 45,455 truckloads.
Contract specifies 552 calendar days. But contractor is working only six days per week and 90 days have elapsed already. That leaves 383 work days.
45,455 truckloads ÷ 383 = approximately 120 truckloads per 8-hour day or 15 per hour.

So far this week, I’ve seen them moving 10-12 loads per hour. So they may still come up short.

And I still haven’t seen any activity on the Taylor Gully portion of the project yet; it has the same deadline. And HCFCD construction docs specify that they expect the contractor to work on both phases simultaneously.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/30/26

3227 Days since Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Proposal for Comprehensive Post-Mining Plan Could Help Avert Future Tragedies

6/29/26 – Forming a Montgomery County Lake District could create a unified post-mining plan for dozens of individual sand mines along the West Fork, benefiting industry, residents and government at all levels. Here’s how.

Roaring Through the Cracks

In August of 2025, I documented the massive breach in the dike of an old sand mine on the San Jacinto West Fork. The 130-acre pond dropped at least 10 feet in less than an hour. All that water rushing out was like a dam breaking. It caused tremendous erosion.

Rushing water destroyed everything in its path and washed a tremendous amount of sediment into the river. 1300 acre-feet of fresh water weighs approximately 3.5 billion pounds! The force of that water enlarged a nick in the dike to an opening up to approximately 150 feet wide by 1000 feet long in minutes.

A year later, the abandoned mine’s owners still have not fixed the damage. See this one-minute video on YouTube of the devastation left behind. I shot the video on 6/27/26.

Tragically, it was all preventable.

How It Happened

Hanson Aggregates stopped mining the pond in 2021. Just months later, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) instituted new best management practices for mining in the San Jacinto River Basin. The new rules called for miners to develop a post-mining/abandonment plan, but TCEQ says that never happened in this case because of the timing.

A group called Ags Unlimited LLC later bought the abandoned mine in 2023 and still owns it today, according to the Montgomery County Appraisal District.

It’s not clear what Ags Unlimited planned for the property. At various points in a conversation with the manager, he mentioned building a boat launch, a kid’s camp, a recreational amenity for an adjacent residential community, and selling wetland-mitigation credits. He later told investigators from the TCEQ that he hoped to build a “recreational pond for livestock management.”

John McKinney, the Montgomery County Floodplain Manager, says the County cited the new owners for non-compliance on December 19, 2024. The issue: Repairing the berm around the pond and installing overflow pipes.

On August 24, 2025, the berm blew out when a contractor with a small backhoe tried to install the overflow pipes. According to one account, he dug too deep into the sandy soil and a trickle quickly enlarged into a torrent.

Breach in abandoned sand mine on San Jacinto West Fork on 8/24/25 — *Photo taken on 8/24/25 as water was still rushing through breach. Compare height of breach to height of excavator.*

Vision for the Future: Montgomery County Lake District

Regardless of what were perhaps good intentions, a disaster resulted. And the present owners seem incapable of fixing it.

The lower water levels have contributed to headcut erosion on adjoining properties, now threatening one widow’s home. So, how do we prevent such harm in the future?

I propose a cooperative effort of cities, counties, Texas Parks & Wildlife, TCEQ, Texas General Land Office (GLO) and industry to designate the areas where sand has been mined along the San Jacinto West Fork, along with floodways, as “The Montgomery County Lake District.” The concept: Turn a network of abandoned mines into publicly owned green space connected by trails.

The Texas Aggregates and Concrete Association (TACA) could help lead the way. It is one of the most powerful lobbies in Austin.

TACA members on the West Fork now have an obligation to provide abandonment/post-mining plans to the TCEQ. Selling their land when mining is complete to the MoCo Lake District could relieve mine owners of the need to develop their own individual abandonment plans. It could also create a positive, lasting legacy for the industry.

From the standpoint of residents, proximity to green spaces enhances surrounding home values and provides healthy, outdoor recreational space. Preservation of floodways and floodplains also reduces flooding.

Governments at All Levels Could Benefit

Former mines along the West Fork could become a new state park under the auspices of Texas Parks and Wildlife, which already has responsibility for rivers in Texas. Land is scarce in urban areas. But abandoned mines sell at a steep discount.

Undeveloped land deep in floodplains and floodways, such as the Scarborough property, just downstream from the Hanson mine, might also be included.

The General Land Office (GLO) has partnered with Scarborough and may be looking for a way to back out of the deal. A state park might be an honorable and popular way to do that.

Cities and counties could reduce water purification and dredging costs. They could also eliminate headaches such as the one above that damage their residents.

The state has resources to address such issues. Small private groups like Ags Unlimited rarely do. Collectively, we can create something far larger than any one group could by itself.

*Rough outline of proposed MoCo Lake District incorporating current and abandoned sand mines as well as undeveloped land in floodways and floodplains along West Fork from US59 to Conroe.*

If it works, this could become a model for responsible aggregate production in Texas and the country.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/29/26

3226 Days since Hurricane Harvey

As HCFCD Tries to Accelerate Projects, Woodridge is Still Crawling

6/28/2026 – Harris County Flood Control District’s (HCFCD) contractor on the Woodridge/Taylor Gully Project apparently didn’t get the memo about billing as much work as soon as possible.

Harris County Commissioners Court approved Brice Construction and Design LLC’s $29.4 million contract in their March 31, 2026, meeting. It took Brice two months to mobilize for the job. And they have accomplished little in the month since they actually started moving dirt.

Looming Deadline on Community Development Block Grant Projects

The County is scrambling to bill $322 million dollars of Community Development Block Grant funds (CDBG) from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by a 2/28/27 deadline to avoid losing the money.

To do that, the Texas General Land Office (GLO), which administers HUD funds in Texas, is letting Harris County bill completed work on both CDBG-Disaster Relief (DR) and CDBG-Mitigation (MIT) projects against the $322 million allocated to DR projects.

The Woodridge/Taylor Gully Project falls into the MIT category which has a longer deadline. According to the contract, the contractor must finish the project no later than December 2027. However, if the company works faster, it can help save up to about 10% of that $322 million for its client.

Slow Going

But with 15% of Brice’s contract time elapsed, the contractor has barely scratched the surface. Aerial photographs show that little has changed in the three months since Brice’s contract was approved.

The contractor is working with a skeleton crew and minimal equipment for a job of this size. So far, they’ve excavated only a small area near the entrance to the job site and broken up some old storm sewer pipe.

Contract documents said HCFCD expected them to work on both Taylor Gully and Woodridge simultaneously. But so far, they have worked only on Woodridge…and only a small portion of Woodridge at that.

The contract includes excavating more than a million cubic yards of dirt to form a 421-acre-foot detention basin, rebuilding the bridge over Taylor Gully at Rustling Elms, and increasing the carrying capacity of approximately 2 miles of Taylor Gully itself.

Let’s look only at the Woodridge portion of the job for a second. Dividing a million cubic yards by the carrying capacity of heavy-duty dump trucks (10 cubic yards) suggests that Brice will have to haul off 100,000 loads of dirt. That boils down to 180 loads per day, 22 per hour, or about one every three minutes per 8-hour work day. I certainly haven’t seen that kind of activity so far.

And those calculations assume the contractor works seven days per week…which they are not…at least so far.

As you look at the photos below, keep in mind that most of what looks like the detention basin was excavated under a previous contract by a different contractor. The million cubic yards is in addition to that.

Pictures Showing Starting Point to Now

The first picture below shows how Woodridge looked when Brice actually started work at the site.

Woodridge Village Construction on Day 2 — *Woodridge on May 22, 2026*

All of the excavation you see above was done previously by Sprint Sand & Clay under an Excavation and Removal (E&R) Contract. HCFCD cancelled the E&R project so that it could apply for HUD funding; projects cannot change by law during the application period.

Here’s how the same area looks another month later.

*June 26, 2026, three months after start of new contract.* *Not much has changed.*

On Saturday June 27, 2026 I saw an excavator, a front end loader, and one dump truck carrying one load during about a 20-minute flight over the site.

Woodridge 26.06.27 — *The excavator would fill up the front end loader, which would then*…

To be fair, more dump trucks may have visited the site during the day, but I didn’t see any others during the time I was there. The activity looked anemic compared to the TC Jester site I had photographed only an hour earlier. I counted more than a dozen dump trucks and three excavators hard at work during the same period of time – a bustling activity level consistent with the hypothetical calculations above.

And contrary to HCFCD’s expectations about working on Woodridge and Taylor Gully simultaneously…

…*I have yet to see any construction activity anywhere along Taylor Gully. Last checked on 6/28/26*

A Challenge for Stuckett

This is just one of the issues that HCFCD’s new executive director Marcus Stuckett will face when he starts on 6/29/26.

How can he accelerate the few projects actually turning dirt at this point to save as much of that $322 million as possible? At the present rate, will Brice even be able to meet its contractual deadline? Or the March 31, 2028 deadline for CDBG-MIT projects?

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/28/26

3225 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.

Construction of Giant East TC Jester Basin Kicks into High Gear

6/26/26 – After getting off to a sluggish start, construction of the giant 725-acre-foot East TC Jester stormwater detention basin along Cypress Creek has kicked into high gear.

History of Project

On 11/30/21, Harris County Commissioners approved an agreement with an engineering company to provide design/bid/construction-phase services.

In September of 2023, Dr. Tina Petersen held a press conference at the site to with Congressman Dan Crenshaw, State Rep. Sam Harless, and Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey to promote the funding secured for construction.

Major funding announced for Cypress Creek Detention Project by Crenshaw, Harless, Ramsey and Petersen — *TC Jester Detention Basin Press Conference promoting availability of funding.*

Then, there was a long pause. In mid-April this year, I received an email from Harris County Flood Control District saying construction had started. But when I visited the site on 4/22/26, I saw nothing but a construction trailer. That led me to conclude that HCFCD was broken.

On 5/1/26, HCFCD released a report saying it would miss the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) deadline of 2/28/27 by several months.

A little more than a month later, on 6/3/26, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) estimated construction was only 2% complete with only nine months left before the clock ran out on $23,844,000.00 of HUD funding.

Progress in Last 2 Months

Today, 6/27/26, I visited the site again and was pleasantly surprised by the progress.

Contractors had to clear the site before excavation could start. That looked complete and they were well into the excavation phase. I saw a carousel of belly-dump trucks parading past three excavators on a Saturday afternoon. In the 20 minutes I flew over the site, I counted more than a dozen of the giant trucks come in, fill up, and exit the site.

See the pictures below. First, here was the starting point two months ago.

*TC Jester East Basin 1B on April 22, 2026 before start of construction. Looking W. TC Jester at top of frame. Cypress Creek on left.*

*Wider shot of same area two months later showing extent of construction on 6/27/2026.*

*Looking WSW from over Cypresswood Drive.*

*Looking E from over TC Jester. Cypresswood Drive on left.*

*Loaded dump trucks circling around and leaving site.*

*Closer shot of the parade of dump trucks.*

*Closer shot showing depth of excavation.*

I wish all the HUD Community Development Block Grant projects were moving as fast as this one. Unfortunately, they aren’t. See one tomorrow that seems to be moving slower. Much slower. .

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/27/2026

3234 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.

Stuckett Unanimously Approved as New Head of HCFCD

6/25/26 – After 15 minutes in executive session this morning, Harris County Commissioners unanimously approved Marcus Stuckett as the new head of Harris County Flood Control District.

*Marcus Stuckett, new Executive Director of HCFCD*

2-Years of Debate Boil Down to 57 Words

Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE made the motion.

Ramsey: I’d like to make a motion to ratify the appointment of Marcus Stuckett as executive director of the Harris County Flood Control District, with an effective date of hire of June 29th, 2026.

Ellis: I’ll second it.

Hidalgo: Can I second this one? Okay. All in favor?

(Four vote AYE, Garcia remained silent.)

Hidalgo: Any opposed? Abstentions? Okay. Motion carries. Unanimously. Congratulations to the new director.

The official record will show Garcia voted in favor of hiring Stuckett despite the fact that he remained silent. Unless a court member explicitly states that he/she votes Against or Abstains, the vote counts as FOR.

It was all over in 57 words and 41 seconds.

Under Dr. Tina Petersen, Stuckett’s predecessor, the speed of project execution slowed precipitously.

HCFCD 2026 Q1 spending — *Cumulative flood-bond spending as of the end of Q1 2026. Petersen took over HCFCD in 2022.*

The slow rate of project execution put hundreds of millions of dollars of federal partnership funding at risk because of looming deadlines that HCFCD would likely miss.

Regardless, last night Garcia took to the airwaves to continue promoting Petersen and question the appointment of Stuckett on procedural grounds. See his comments on KHOU Channel 11, ABC Channel 13 and Fox Channel 26.

However, shortly after this morning’s vote in Commissioners Court, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) released this statement from Commissioner Dawn Buckingham. She said that she looks forward to working with Stuckett to serve the residents of Harris County. She added:

“Time is of the essence. Harris County residents deserve nothing less than ‘full speed ahead’ to ensure these projects are completed on time in accordance with the federal deadline.”
– Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, M.D.

“Like Changing a Tire on a Busy Freeway”

Stuckett inherits Petersen’s problems and a volatile, high-pressure, politically charged situation despite the apparent unanimity of today’s decision.

One observer said this about Stuckett’s return to HCFCD: “It will be like changing a tire on a busy freeway with traffic flying by at 70 MPH.”

There’s still a chance that HCFCD could miss deadlines on some projects. But the people I consulted for this story say that Stuckett is Harris County’s best hope for saving the federal funds.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/25/26

3222 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.

Northpark Surface Lanes Now Open from US59 Past Russell Palmer

6/24/26 – Traffic now flows smoothly – straight through – on new Northpark Drive surface lanes all the way from US59 to Russell Palmer Road and beyond! Yesterday afternoon, crews switched crossing arms and traffic signals at Loop 494 and the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks.

Traffic flowed smoothly all the way down Northpark! And within an hour, Harper Brothers started demolishing the old lanes.

*Demolishing old asphalt lanes near UPRR tracks*. *Photo courtesy of Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority.*

The switch to the new surface lanes now opens the way for bridge construction over the tracks and 494. That’s the good news.

Impact of Intersection Reconstruction

However, the Loop 494 intersection is being demolished for storm sewer work and repaving. Northpark Project Manager Ralph De Leon expects that could take as long as 4-5 weeks. However, Harper Brothers Construction hopes to shorten that time.

East-west traffic will remain open and unobstructed during reconstruction of the intersection. However, north-south traffic on Loop 494 will be diverted onto Northpark. To continue north or south, traffic will have to go east or west on Northpark until it reaches a crossover. After making a U-turn, drivers will then have to double back to 494 and turn north or south again.

It sounds complicated. But the drone photos below will help visualize it. All pictures below were taken around 3PM on 6/23/26.

*Note in- and outbound Northpark traffic now using new concrete feeder lanes. Also note northbound 494 traffic turning right on Northpark to loop around and get to the other side of the intersection.*

North- and southbound traffic may find it easier to use US59 for the next month.

*Contractors demolishing the old, asphalt center lanes near railroad and Loop 494 intersection*

*Facing east. Wider shot shows east/west traffic now crossing 494 and tracks straight through in both directions.*

*Facing south. Note Loop 494 traffic being diverted onto Northpark in both directions.*

*Inbound is now a straight shot as far as the eye can see.*

Traffic no longer does a zig-zag near the tracks as it did for months.

Entry Pond Status

Elsewhere along the length of the project, another visible sign of progress is the entry ponds at US59. They will double as detention ponds that handle additional runoff from the extra lanes being added to Northpark. They will also serve as beautiful, welcoming entrances to the community.

For More Information

Search “Northpark expansion” on this website. Or visit the project pages on the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority website.

You can find a three-week lookahead schedule, here. Major priorities in the next few weeks include:

Excavating, grading and lining both detention basins
Finish demo of old lanes
Finish installation of illumination.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/24/26

3221 Days since Hurricane Harvey

HGSD Issues Final 2025 Report on Groundwater, Subsidence

6/23/26 – In May of this year, I posted a PowerPoint from the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District showing a preview of their 2025 annual groundwater report. The final report has since been published. You can follow the links below to its component parts:

Two-page overview/info sheet – explains at a high level how drought, population growth, and regulation interact to influence groundwater use and subsidence
An updated interactive subsidence map showing representative locations throughout the region
The PowerPoint presentation discussed in May
A 43-minute video of the PowerPoint being presented to a public gathering (including Q&A and public comments)
A 6-page executive summary of the report
The full 275-page report with appendices.

The people at the Subsidence District are real scientists. Anyone interested in earth sciences will find this material enlightening. It could even make a great summer science project for your students.

Report Shows Impact of Regulation in Reducing Subsidence

By comparing groundwater reports from previous years, you can see how subsidence has shifted in reponse to regulations. The earliest-regulated areas have minimized subsidence, while it still rages in areas only recently regulated.

Two centimeters is a little less than an inch. So in a decade, those areas with maroon shading could sink 8-12 inches.

But downstream areas are sinking less. Far less. That’s called differential subsidence. And differential subsidence can reduce the elevation of one area relative to others nearby. You can clearly see differential subsidence in this map, which features InSAR data (Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar).

Subsidence Map Insar from 2025 Report — *From Page 30 of report*.

Impacts of Subsidence on Infrastructure, Property Values

For instance, the Lake Houston Dam is sinking at a much slower rate than areas upstream in Montgomery County. That, in essence, tilts the lake toward its headwaters, reducing the safety margin that people built their homes above the floodplain.

But even before you flood, you could experience subsidence as cracks in concrete or in the walls of your home. Subsidence can even trigger geologic faulting.

Subsidence induced by groundwater pumping — *Woodlands faulting damage triggered by subsidence.*

Combatting Subsidence

Combatting subsidence requires reducing groundwater usage. Said another way, it requires getting on surface water. That’s why the City has spent $2 billion to quintuple the treated surface water supply from Lake Houston.

Phases 2A and 2B of NE Water Purification plant still under construction — *Northeast Water Purification Plant Expansion in progress in 2023.*

The North Harris County Regional Water Authority is also constructing an additional 94 miles of transmission and distribution lines to connect 45 Municipal Utility Districts and get them off groundwater.

That’s how serious subsidence is.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/23/2026

3220 Days since Hurricane Harvey