Colony Ridge Victims Protest Proposed Settlement that Leaves Them Out

3/5/26 – On Friday 3/6/26, eight advocacy groups will protest a proposed settlement in two lawsuits involving the controversial Colony Ridge development in Liberty County. The State of Texas and U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau alleged fraudulent marketing and sales practices by Colony Ridge. The proposed settlement would correct those moving forward. However, it does nothing to compensate past victims.

Merry Christmas from Colony Ridge
Merry Christmas from Colony Ridge, photographed December 2020.

Parties Objecting to Proposed Settlement

The 30-page settlement proposed on February 9, 2026, requires Colony Ridge to invest $20 million to beef up law enforcement and $48 million to correct deficiencies in existing infrastructure. It also requires Colony Ridge to reform its marketing and sales practices going forward.

However, it does nothing to compensate the victims of past, alleged abuses. And as a result, eight advocacy groups have joined together to protest the settlement. They include:

  • National Fair Housing Alliance
  • National Consumer Law Center
  • UnidosUS
  • Public Justice
  • Center for Responsible Lending
  • Poverty and Race Research Action Council
  • Southern Poverty Law Center
  • League of United Latin American Citizens

At least one of the victims, Maria Acevedo, has also requested to testify tomorrow.

Basis of Amicus Brief

The advocacy groups’ 21-page amicus brief contends that a motion to join and seal the two cases…

“… improperly asks the court to approve and enforce relief that is unrelated to the pleaded case or the civil rights statutes under which it was brought, even as the proposed settlement fails to provide adequate relief to those harmed by the predatory and discriminatory scheme at issue.”

If the courts approved the proposed settlement, the cases would be over and sealed forever. But the settlement fails to provide any meaningful relief for those allegedly defrauded by Colony Ridge’s predatory lending practices, including:

  • Seller-financed mortgages that ignored borrowers’ ability to repay
  • Excessive fees
  • Omitting total costs to install and connect necessary infrastructure, such as water, sewer and electrical utilities
  • Misrepresenting flood risk and large expenses required to mitigate that risk
  • Exorbitant interest rates as high as 12.9% – three to five times the prevailing rate
  • Late fees on delinquent borrowers, compounding their inability to repay
  • Targeting Hispanics, but not providing closing documents in Spanish
  • Repeated and excessive foreclosures (an average of 298 per month comprising 92% of all foreclosures in Liberty County).

Colony Ridge repeatedly foreclosed on and then resold properties, profiting from any improvements made by previous buyers. The brief cites the case of one property sold four times in two years.

The amicus brief contends that the settlement proposes to “forfeit the meritorious claims alleged in the complaint, let Defendants off the hook, and leave consumers without compensation for the harms they have suffered.”

Scale of Alleged Harm

Although the brief does not provide exact figures, it says “tens of thousands” of consumers “lost thousands of dollars with little or nothing to show for the investments.” That would put total losses into the tens of millions of dollars.” Yet the agreement does not include any direct financial relief for consumers who lost money.

Colony Ridge
Colony Ridge Expansion in 2021. Colony Ridge is now 50% larger than Manhattan.

Nor does the proposed settlement provide any relief for those currently trapped in existing contracts. The original lawsuit sought an option to rescind sales contracts for families caught up in the scheme. However, the amicus brief says, “While the agreement creates a rescission option for future borrowers, [it] does nothing for existing consumers stuck in predatory contracts.”

Also, “It does not address the harm to the borrowers who purchased lots believing that they would not flood only to find that they did, or those who are stuck with unhabitable, flooded lots…”

Hearing Details

The Honorable Judge Alfred H. Bennett of the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas/Houston Division will rule on the issues raised in the brief on Friday, March 6, 2026.

Three lawyers from Washington DC who represent the advocacy groups will oppose the proposed settlement.

For those who want to observe, the Federal Courthouse is at 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, TX. The hearing is reportedly in Courtroom 9A at 10:30.

For More Information

For more information and perspectives, see these statements published by:

Democracy Forward

National Consumer Law Center

National Fair Housing Alliance

Trautman Pepper Locke Law Firm

LULAC

National Fair Housing Alliance

Maria Acevedo, a Colony Ridge victim, also hopes to testify tomorrow as an individual. See her personal letter to the court.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/5/26

3110 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.

Reminder: SJRA Joint-Reservoir-Operations Meeting in Humble

3/4/26 – The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) will hold a meeting at the Humble Civic Center to solicit public input on its Joint-Reservoir-Operations Study. Please come:

  • March 5 @ 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm
  • 8233 Will Clayton Pkwy, Humble, TX 77338

Representatives from the SJRACoastal Water Authority, City of Houston, Humble, and the study consultant, Black & Veatch Engineering, will explain the study and field your questions. The meeting will feature informational tables where residents can talk with engineers one on one, plus a presentation.

According to Matt Barrett, PE, SJRA’s Water Resources and Flood Management Division Manager, “one of the main objectives of the study is to determine if there are any benefits to pre-releases from Lake Conroe and Lake Houston.”

Not an Easy Question

While that may seem obvious to flood victims, the question can get complicated. In involves an almost infinite number of weather scenarios, engineering variables and water-supply considerations. For instance:

  • How much rain will fall and how fast? Which direction will the storm come from? Where will the most rain fall in the river basin?
  • How many gates can the budget support? Will they be able to keep up with Lake Conroe’s discharges?
  • What happens if a storm veers away at the last minute? How can we make sure pre-releases don’t waste water or flood downstream neighbors?

In my mind, the question is not “if” pre-releases have a benefit, but “when.”

And that relates to a second objective of the study: to develop a flow forecasting tool for the entire river basin.

Accordingly, said Barrett, “The study will also consider the travel time of water between Lake Conroe and Lake Houston, a factor that’s crucial in evaluation of pre-releases.”

Experience of Other River Basins

Coordinating pre-releases from multiple dams is not an unusual problem. Most rivers have more than one. For instance, multiple dams on the lower Colorado River help keep Austin from flooding.

There’s a well-established body of work showing that coordinating operations across multiple reservoirs can produce measurable flood-mitigation benefits. However, hydrology, travel times, and downstream constraints must align. 

The big win is usually shaving peak flows. Engineers in other watersheds have seen flood-mitigation benefits when their studies identified operating rules that:

  • Prevented “release stacking” – We must avoid upstream releases arriving at the same time as peak local inflows from other uncontrolled tributaries, such as the East Fork or Spring and Cypress Creeks
  • Used forecasts intelligently – Pre-release only works when forecast confidence and downstream capacity justify it
  • Respected downstream constraints – Don’t exceed channel limits. 

Make-or-break technical questions for the San Jacinto Watershed will likely include:

  • Travel time for water between Lake Conroe and Lake Houston and how that changes with different base flows.
  • Downstream constraints such as local rainfall in the Lake Houston watershed
  • Forecast confidence and decision triggers – When will forecasts be reliable enough to justify pre-release without wasting water supply or making flooding worse.
  • What will the study optimize for? Peak flood stage at specific gages? Total damages? Avoiding emergency spillway use? Protecting evacuation routes? Something else?

Bring your questions to the Civic Center.

Why is This Study Taking So Long?

The project was delayed by a change in plans in adding gates to the Lake Houston Dam. SJRA first applied for a grant to study synchronizing releases from the two dams back in 2020. However, after crest gates to the spillway portion of the dam proved infeasible, the City of Houston decided to study adding tainter gates to the earthen eastern portion of the dam.

site of proposed gates for Lake Houston on east side of dam
Tainter gates like Lake Conroe’s will now go in the earthen portion of the dam above, not the concrete spillway in distance.

That new study is now 30% complete. That’s far enough along to start making engineering decisions. But to complicate things even further, costs have escalated because of inflation. That raises some additional questions…and scenarios. How many gates can the City afford? Will they be able to keep up with releases from Lake Conroe? And will Black & Veatch even examine scenarios involving additional gates?

If history is any indication, you can bet that members from the Lake Conroe Association will be there to talk against pre-release. If you want your interests represented in this study, make sure you come tomorrow night. And make sure they include the scenarios in their study that represent your biggest concerns.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/4/26

3109 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Toth Continues Assaults on First Amendment, Human Rights, Common Sense

3/2/26 – In one of the most hotly contested primaries in recent memory, State Rep. Steve Toth is running against Congressman Dan Crenshaw in the newly redrawn Congressional District 2. I urge you to vote for Crenshaw who has consistently delivered flood-mitigation dollars for the Lake Houston Area. But that’s not the only reason.

Speech Suppression, Refusal to Debate, Lies, Black Money

Toth’s supporters have:

  • Relentlessly destroyed Crenshaw signs
  • Rudely interfered with Crenshaw campaign workers at polling places
  • Loudly disrupted Crenshaw meetings
One of many Crenshaw signs destroyed in the middle of the night the day before the primary.
Toth supporters defacing Crenshaw sign
Another destroyed earlier

Toth himself has:

  • Deployed an army of bots, trolls and “engagement farms” to flood social media with unsubstantiated, negative comments about Crenshaw
  • Boycotted two scheduled debates with Crenshaw in the Woodlands and with the Chronicle
  • Repeatedly and knowingly lied about Crenshaw’s assets while concealing his own
  • Used a half million dollars from a Colony Ridge banker to attack Crenshaw, who demanded an investigation into Colony Ridge and its financing practices.

Negative Voting Record, Negative Campaigning

Mr. Toth tears down his opponent because he has virtually nothing positive to say about himself. Toth has one of the most negative voting records in the Texas Legislature.

Understanding what Toth voted NO on gives you deeper insight into the man and his values.

In 2025, Toth voted against flood mitigation, flood-warning systems, free speech, food banks, cybersecurity, conservation, grid reliability, open meetings, transparency, ethics, border security, fraud protections, and disclosure of campaign finance information. 

Toth also voted against groups, such as law enforcement, first responders, consumers, patients, motorists, veterans, educators, CPAs, dentists, dental hygienists, farmers, restauranteurs, insurers, aviators, heath-care providers, seniors, schoolchildren, whistleblowers, correctional officers, manufacturers, attorneys, college students, utility employees, people who work from home, flood victims, crime victims, and rural Texans.

In the previous two legislatures, Toth voted AGAINST:

  • Handicapped parking at polling places
  • Allowing people to affiliate with the political party of their choice
  • The Texas Ethics Commission
  • Sexual harassment prevention
  • Gulf Coast hurricane protection
  • Online consumer protections
  • Property tax relief
  • Combatting human trafficking
  • Workplace violence prevention policies
  • Whistleblower protection
  • Training programs for child-abuse investigators
  • Prohibiting construction of assisted-living facilities in Harris County 100-year floodplains
  • Reporting cybersecurity breaches

Toth voted against a majority of Republicans on every single one of these measures and hundreds more. On many of them, more than 90% of Republicans voted FOR the bills.

How Extremists Like Toth Can Hijack an Election

Voting NO so often helps Toth boost his conservative rating among some far right-leaning groups. But it also means, he has accomplished virtually nothing. He has nothing positive he can say about himself. He has NO record to run on. So, he tears down his opponent. That’s all he can do. And all he has done.

As of the end of two weeks of early voting, 8.1% of registered voters had voted. If half of those are Democrats, that means 4% of voters will determine the Republican candidate in CD-2 – unless YOU vote Tuesday, March 3rd.

Extremists like Toth represent a huge percentage of that 4%. The nut cases ALL vote.

Don’t let them determine your choices in November.

Please vote for Crenshaw if you want to continue seeing flood-mitigation improvements. He has brought hundreds of millions of flood-mitigation dollars to the Lake Houston Area.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/2/26

3107 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.

Breaches in Triple PG Sand-Mine Dikes Remain Open as Trial Drags into Year 8

3/1/26 – Travis County District Clerk records show that the state’s case against the Triple PG sand mine in Porter is now dragging into Year 8.

Meanwhile, breaches in the mine’s dikes remain open, allowing sediment-laden wastewater and stormwater to escape into the headwaters of Lake Houston, the source of water for more than two million people. The State of Texas originally sued the owners of the mine precisely because of such breaches.

The land on which the mine operates is under owned by Prabhakar R. Guniganti or one of several corporate entities that trace back to him. Guniganti is a cardiologist from Nacogdoches. The case began in 2019. And for a period, Guniganti kept shifting ownership of the mine through various shell companies and trusts to delay a trial. Finally, the state sued him as an individual.

Next came other delays related to discovery. Jury trials were cancelled in 2023 and 2024. In May 2025, a fourth amended scheduling order showed the discovery period should have ended in November 2025 and the trial should have started by February 9, 2026.

However, court records show that in December 2025, the court issued a FIFTH amended scheduling order. Ken Paxton’s office has stopped responding to emails regarding this case.

Screen Capture from Travis County District Clerk for Case D-1-GN-19-007086.

Meanwhile, erosion has created a breach into Caney Creek. It was caused by mining too close to a utility easement and now threatens pipelines carrying highly volatile liquids (HVL). It also threatens an electrical transmission tower.

Photos of Mine from 2/28/26

That particular breach has remained open at least since August 14, 2025. Here’s how it looked yesterday from several angles.

Guniganti’s mine stretches 2.5 miles from north to south. Montgomery County Appraisal District records show that he or one of his corporate entities still owns the property, despite name changes at the mine entrance on Hueni Road in Porter.

The southern part of Guniganti’s mine. Caney Creek in foreground. Note breach through utility corridor.
Reverse angle shows breach more clearly. Note pipelines still exposed.
Looking E. Another breach at far south end of mine. Lake Houston Park at top of frame.
Farther NW, mining next to utility corridor now threatens long-distance electrical transmission towers.
Breach in upper left. Caney Creek in middle. Note difference in water color in Peach Creek which joins Caney Creek in bottom right.
Farther to the NW, note another breach in the northern portion of Guniganti’s mine.
Closer shot of same breach shown in photo above. Caney Creek on bottom.

Guniganti doesn’t own the only mine on Caney Creek. Another exists upstream from his. But I didn’t see any breaches in that particular mine.

So, this may be a case of multiple mines or construction sites even farther upstream spoiling the water quality. Yesterday, I wasn’t able to work my way far enough upstream to see where the water color changed definitively.

Said another way, it’s not clear whether Guniganti’s mine 1) caused, 2) contributed to, or 3) played no role in this particular episode of Caney Creek sludge. However…

Impact on People and Fish

Two things are certain though. 1) The breaches let exposed sediment escape during storms. 2) The pollution is not good for people or fish.

For humans, sediment pollution increases filtration costs that show up in water bills. But for fish, sediment pollution can be fatal.

Yesterday, several fishermen told me that the white bass which usually spawn in this area are gone this year. So I asked ChatGPT how sediment pollution from sand mining and construction affect the spawning grounds for bass.

White bass, it seems, depend heavily on clean, course river substrates – typically gravel or cobble – for successful reproduction. Sediment pollution from sand mining operations and construction runoff can significantly degrade those spawning grounds through several mechanisms.

  • Egg suffocation by fine sediment
  • Filling the void spaces between stones. For many river fish, including white bass, >25–30% fine sediment content in spawning gravel begins to significantly reduce survival.
  • Increased turbidity disrupts spawning runs through reduced visibility and clogged gills. White bass often migrate upstream tens of miles from reservoirs or large rivers to spawn; sediment plumes can disrupt these movements.
  • Channel changes including bank collapse, loss of shallow riffles and channel downcutting
  • Burial of eggs during storm pulses. Even a few centimeters of sand can eliminate a spawning bed.
  • Impact on food chain. Even if eggs hatch, juveniles have a lower survival rate because sediment pollution also kills aquatic insects on which they feed.

For a deeper dive into the sediment pollution impacts from construction and sand mining on fish spawning, click here.

Volume of Sediment

Most sediment moves during storms. Scientists call these “sediment pulses.” And the bigger the storm, the bigger the pulses. One study suggests that Harvey moved 7.5 million metric tons of sediment in the San Jacinto watershed.

Loose sand in mines can dramatically increase sediment mobility.

Based on flood-damage studies and sediment-transport modeling, breaches of dikes around one large, sand pit can release 50-200 tons of sediment in a single storm.

Erosion happens naturally, even in heavily forested areas. But sand mines amplify sediment release because they:

  1. Store unconsolidated sand directly next to the river
  2. Remove vegetation and soil structure
  3. Use levees that can breach during floods
  4. Create pits that connect to the river during high water.

Relative Impact of Sediment Sources

ChatGPT compared the relative sediment contributions of several sources including:

SourceSediment Yield
Undisturbed forestVery low
AgricultureModerate
Urban constructionHigh
Sand mining near riversVery high (episodic)

Sand mines near rivers are especially problematic because:

  • Exposed sand is easily mobilized
  • Pit captures can deliver large slugs of sediment during floods
  • Stockpiles and haul roads contribute chronic runoff.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 3/1/26

3106 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 Update: Rail Crossings, Bridge, Turn Lanes, Lights and More

2/27/26 – Within the next week, Northpark Drive expansion contractors will likely start paving the last sections of surface road across the UnionPacific Railroad Tracks and Loop 494. The completion of surface roads will clear the way to finish demolishing the old lanes now being used to get traffic across the tracks. And once the old pavement is gone, work on the bridge can begin in earnest.

The holdup to date has been installation of the railroad traffic signals for the new surface lanes. But UPRR has almost completed that work. They will install two gates on both inbound and outbound sides (a change to meet new code requirements). Work on the signals and feeder roads should be complete by late May or early June.

In other news:

  • Northbound 59 once again has two dedicated right-hand turn lanes onto Northpark inbound. That eliminated a huge backup.
  • With the exception of some small areas near the railroad tracks and loop 494, two completely paved inbound lanes now stretch all the way from 59 past Russell-Palmer Road.
  • Contractors are installing street lamps.
  • They are also running culverts north-to-south next to the railroad tracks under where the bridge will go.

See the pictures below taken on 2/27/26 at approximately 4PM.

Turn Lanes Off Northbound 59 Feeder

On 11/28/25, I took a shot like the one below and traffic was backed up for blocks. Today, on a Friday afternoon rush hour traffic was breezing through thanks to the opening of the second inbound turn lane. See below.

Looking S. With the completion of two inbound lanes (lower left), both northbound turn lanes on the feeder could be opened.

Bridge Approaches

When complete, Northpark will feature a bridge with three lanes in each direction that carries traffic over the UPRR tracks and Loop 494. That’s in keeping with plans for Northpark to become an all-weather evacuation route.

Looking E at the six lanes where the bridge will go.
Looking W toward 59. Six lanes for the second bridge approach will go in the dirt area (center).

Railroad Crossings for Surface Lanes

In the two pictures above, you can see that the two outside feeder lanes that will parallel the bridge are already complete with the exception of the short stretch across the tracks. But move a little closer to the tracks, and you can see that Harper Brothers is paving that last surface-lane segment approaching the tracks.

After contractors complete the second outbound surface lane above, they will have less than 40 yards to complete the surface lanes to/from 59.

This shot, even closer, shows that last 40 yards.

The surface lanes will connect with the two rectangular concrete sections that UPRR installed last year across its tracks.
Note the controller box (shiny silver in lower left) that will control inbound RR crossing gates. Comparable equipment is being installed out of frame to the right for outbound gates.
The unpaved section in front of the dry cleaners on the corner of 494 and Northpark is the only other unpaved surface-road section aside from the railroad crossings.

Drainage and Lights

Culvert Installation. Photo courtesy Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority (LHRA).
Pouring foundation for street light. Photo courtesy of LHRA.

If you now drive from the 59 feeder road all the way down past Russell Palmer to the end of the project, you can see that almost all the foundations are in on both sides of the street.

“For each, the contractors drill a hole, put in the rebar, backfill it with concrete, then put all the conduit and pole boxes in,” said Ralph De Leon, the LHRA project manager. “We’re getting really close to having streetlights all the way down on both sides, behind the curb.” 

He added, “They’ll be LED lights. It’ll be illuminated like it’s ever been before in history.”

For More Information

See the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority website project pages, including a 3-week lookahead schedule.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/27/26

3104 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The Importance of Voting in Primaries

2/26/26 – Exactly 8.5 years ago this week, the entire Lake Houston Area faced an existential threat by the name of Hurricane Harvey. Harvey killed 12 people in Kingwood Town Center, and flooded more than 16,000 homes and 3,300 businesses here.

In my opinion, we can’t let that happen again. We need to find ways to reduce flood risk before the next killer flood. That will take political solutions. And we need people with a firm grasp of the issues who have the desire, skills, and energy to make them real.

Iwill this get any of the $750 million in CDBG-MIT funds from the GLO?
I-69 and Townsen during Harvey

Importance of Voting in PRIMARIES

Unfortunately, few citizens vote in primaries. So, a small group of extremists funded by outsiders with other interests can limit your choices in November. Those extremists vote in high numbers and can easily influence the outcomes in primaries that have multiple candidates. And that’s why it’s important to vote NOW.

The last day for early voting is Friday, February 27. If you haven’t voted by then, your last chance will be Election Day on March 3, 2026.

Harris Votes

Below are my personal recommendations in three key, contested races.

Congressional District 2: Dan Crenshaw

As the community sought ways to reduce future flood risk after Harvey, a freshman Congressman named Dan Crenshaw rose to the challenge perhaps more than anyone at that point. He secured hundreds of millions of dollars for dredging, adding more floodgates to the Lake Houston Dam, and upstream detention. Not all of those projects are complete yet. But the money is waiting and projects are moving along.

In contrast, Crenshaw’s opponent in the current primary did little to help. He voted against a bill to create a Lake Houston Dredging and Maintenance District. He did nothing to rein in sedimentation from upstream sand mines in his Texas House district. And he argued to let children’s camps, like Camp Mystic, continue to build in floodplains.

I voted for Crenshaw.

Congressional District 9: Alex Mealer

In a neighboring congressional district to the east (CD-9), Alex Mealer faces a challenge from Briscoe Cain. Mealer is a West Point grad who commanded a company of 600+ people in Afghanistan and earned a Bronze Star. She also has MBA and JD degrees from Harvard. Plus, she has President Trump’s endorsement. And finally, she has spent days with me scouting flood issues in the Lake Houston Area and upstream. The woman is a force of nature. Strong. Brilliant. Energetic. Informed. And ready to step into the job.

Briscoe Cain, her opponent, also voted against a Lake Houston Area Dredging District this year (HB 1532), even though it wouldn’t have raised taxes. He also did not vote for the so-called “Ike Dike” bill (HB 1089). Finally, as a state representative, Cain presided over the growth of Colony Ridge in his district. It got so big and so bad that the entire Texas Republican Congressional Delegation demanded an investigation of the controversial development.

I don’t live in CD9, but if I did, I would vote for Mealer. The Lake Houston Dam is in her new Congressional District.

Harris County Judge: Marty Lancton

The race for Harris County Judge is also a critical for the Lake Houston Area. We’ve seen how Judge Lina Hidalgo starved the Lake Houston Area of flood-mitigation funding and our rightful share of the 2018 flood bond. We had the worst flooding in the county and have come in almost dead last in funding compared to other watersheds in the county.

Worst flooding in Harris County.

Graph compiled from: Harris County Flood Control District Year-End 2025 reported bond spending and budget allocations advertised with 2018 flood bond.

Republicans have many good choices to replace Hidalgo in this race. On balance, though, I feel Marty Lancton is the best choice. He also has the best chance of getting elected in November.

Lancton leads an army of 20,000 first responders state wide. And he knows flooding first-hand from the standpoint of a person who has evacuated victims on his back and in lifeboats.

It’s one thing to understand problems intellectually and another to feel the shock-and-awe of Mother Nature for days on end as you repeatedly put your own life on the line to help fellow human beings you never met. I promise you, flood mitigation is a high priority for Lancton.

Lancton can draw support from both sides of the aisle in a way that perhaps other candidates cannot. And that makes him electable in the general election still nine months away. Among Republican candidates, he uniquely stands out. He is a lifelong Republican, endorsed by Governor Greg Abbott. Yet the firefighters union also elected him as its leader. And he knows how Austin works. He has lobbied there on behalf of first responders for years and knows all the key members.

I have endorsed Lancton.

Vote Even If You Disagree With My Recommendations

You may disagree with my choices or have different priorities. That’s fine. But please vote. It’s important that YOU make the decision instead of some out-of-state super-PAC. Many have invisible donors representing hidden interests fighting against YOUR interests. Don’t let them limit your choices in November with patriotic sounding names.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/26/26

3103 Days since Harvey

Harris County Shuts Down Fill Operation in Cedar Bayou Floodplain

2/25/26 – According to Precinct 3 Director of Engineering Eric Heppen, P.E., PMP, Harris County has issued a cease-and-desist order to the owner of property in the Cedar Bayou floodplain where TXDoT contractors were depositing dirt excavated from the Luce Bayou watershed.

Dirt excavated in upper left was being trucked to Cedar Bayou floodplain in massive quantities.
floodplain fill
One of two truck lines at excavation site. Approximately 20 dump trucks were filling up at detention basin under construction adjacent to FM2100.
From there, a parade of the trucks deposited it in the Cedar Bayou Floodplain before making another round trip.

Precinct 3 Project Manager Jason Hains said trucks stopped depositing the fill yesterday afternoon, 2/24/25. Nearby residents say they did not see trucks entering or leaving the property today.

TXDoT Comment

One reader, Chris Summers, who complained directly to TXDoT received this reply this afternoon from TXDoT’s North Harris Assistant Area Engineer Nyemb Nyemb, PE. Mr. Nyemb said, “Our construction and environmental teams are looking into it now. We also have a meeting with Harris County tomorrow and will address this matter with them directly. TXDoT contractors are required to comply with all applicable floodplain and environmental regulations, and any confirmed violations will be corrected.”

Summers, who reported the illegal dumping, said, “TXDoT may not have known where their fill dirt was going, but should have.”

Violation of Harris County Floodplain Regulations

The fill operation violated Harris County Floodplain Regulations adopted by Commissioners Court in 2019 in response to Hurricane Harvey. During Harvey, almost half of the Harris County homes flooded were outside of any known floodplain. In part, that’s because of the cumulative impact of such unauthorized dumping during almost twenty years since Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. And that’s a large part of the reason why Section 4.07(e) now says:

“Any reduction in floodplain storage or conveyance capacity within the 0.2 percent or 500‐year floodplain must be offset with a hydraulically equivalent (one‐to‐one) volume of mitigation sufficient to offset the reduction. The reduction may result from development or the placement of fill within the 0.2% floodplain or 500‐year floodplain.”

“Such mitigation shall be within the same watershed and shall be provided on the same property or within the same hydrologic sub‐watershed or at an alternate site meeting the approval of the County Engineer. A full hydrological and hydraulic analysis must be submitted to support a request for mitigation outside the boundaries of the property being developed. This requirement does not apply to Coastal Areas where floodplain fill mitigation is not an issue.”

What Property Owner Must Do

According to both Heppen and Hains, the owner of the property in the floodplain must:

  • Stop accepting fill
  • Come up with a plan to remove fill already deposited there.

That’s going to be a big order. The fill reached treetop level in places and covered approximately six acres.

Reportedly, the owner did not plan to build anything on the dirt, but planned to sell it. He referred to the dirt as “temporary.”

But Heppen emphasized that that still did not relieve the owner of the need to develop a mitigation plan, which he did not do. Nor did it relieve him of the burden of acquiring a permit, which he did not have.

Loss of Floodplain Storage Incremental and Cumulative

Heppen emphasized that the loss of floodplain storage is incremental and cumulative.

He referred to the displacement of floodwaters. For every cubic yard you place in the floodway, that’s one less cubic yard for the storage of floodwaters.

“That’s why it’s prohibited,” Heppen said. “If enough people do it, eventually you erase the safety margin above the floodplain for surrounding homes.”

Heppen thanked readers for bringing this to the County’s attention and for filing complaints.

Could State Criminalize Such Behavior?

Heppen also said that the county may work with the state next year to pass a law against such fill activity. The thought: to make such dumping a criminal, not a civil offense. That changes the whole “What if I get caught?” equation. Instead of a slap-on-the-wrist fine, a criminal record might disqualify someone from getting future jobs.

Passing such a law would surely be an uphill battle. But that also speaks to the widespread nature of the problem.

One other engineer I talked to suggested, “The problem is going on all over Harris County.” Another said, “It puts everyone at risk.”

If You See Such Dumping…

If you see a recurrence of such dumping here or anywhere in Harris County, please report it to me. I’ll help document it and get it to the proper authorities.

They prohibit the addition of fill to floodplains without 1:1 compensatory mitigation in the same floodplain, and preferably on the same property. 

It’s OK for people to excavate a pond or detention basin on their property, and use the excavated dirt to elevate other parts of their property. The golden rule: Just don’t bring fill INTO a Harris County floodplain.”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/25/26

3102 Days since Harvey

Editorial: The Flood-Mitigation Treadmill

2/22/2026 – After researching more than 3,000 articles about flooding since Hurricane Harvey, I’ve concluded that we’re on a flood-mitigation treadmill. In other words, we run like crazy and do not get very far. Even worse, we can’t get off the treadmill.

Most of those 3,000 articles can be divided into two groups: things that increase flood risk and things that decrease it. Preventing things that increase flood risk typically costs one-fourth to one-seventh the cost of decreasing risk after a flood.

So, why are we stuck on this endless flood-mitigation treadmill? Why do we prefer expensive, after-the-fact solutions. And why don’t we actively enforce regulations already on the books that proactively reduce flood risk and prevent damage at a far lower cost?

Before we get to the reasons, first we must understand that flood risk is not static. Every little change to the landscape affects it.

Flood-Risk Changing Constantly

Flood-risk changes in barely visible increments, gradually over time. But all of those changes are incremental. And flooding happens infrequently. So, most people don’t wake up to the increased flood risk until it’s too late. At that point, the fixes have astronomical price tags. Two high-level examples:

  • Rivers can become clogged with sediment from mining and construction. That reduces their capacity to handle high-water events safely. Dredging can offset that increased risk, but has cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
  • Sometimes, upstream developments don’t sufficiently control their runoff. That makes flood peaks build higher and faster downstream. To offset those increased peaks, we must often widen channels downstream. And that may require buyouts that take decades more.

In general, after people finally recognize the need for mitigation, we must:

  • Build the case for fixes
  • Estimate their cost
  • Compare costs and benefits
  • Build political consensus across local, county, state and federal governments
  • Get an act of Congress passed and signed by the President
  • Win scarce grants
  • Get bids
  • Mobilize contractors.

And that’s all before we even begin to address the risk created by:

  • Someone upstream who decided to game the system for profit
  • Regulators who didn’t enforce regulations
  • Maintenance deferred for decades or perpetually ignored.

Staggering Costs

The costs can be staggering:

  • In Harris County, we passed a $2.5 billion flood bond in 2018. Some estimated the real need at $60 billion. That’s why we spend so much time seeking matching funds at the federal level, such as the hundreds of millions of dollars that Rep. Dan Crenshaw helped secure for dredging.
  • The 2024 Texas State Flood Plan showed that six million Texans live in floodplains – about one in five of us. The cost of mitigating their flood risk totals $54.5 billion. But so far, we’ve only allocated $1.4 billion to the job.
  • At the Federal level, we spend an average of about $10 billion per year on flooding. But that amount can vary radically when we get hit with massive storms like Harvey or Helene. Harvey caused $125 billion in damages in Harris County alone.

Losing Ground

Between floods, we seem to forget their destructive power. So, we keep building in floodplains and wetlands which just exacerbates the problem. For example:

  • The Signorelli Company (a real-estate developer) fought for 10 years all the way to the Texas Supreme Court for the right to build in the East Fork floodplain.
  • Ron Holley Development also wants to build homes in the floodplain of the East Fork, not far from Signorelli
  • Scarborough is trying to develop thousands of homes on 5,300 acres near the confluence of the San Jacinto West Fork with Spring and Cypress Creeks, one of the worst areas for flooding in the region.
  • Colony Ridge didn’t exist 15 years ago and is now 50% larger than Manhattan. Evidence suggests the developer didn’t sufficiently detain runoff. Plus much of the development was built over wetlands.

We also keep dumping more fill in floodplains, floodways, and streams that creates a bathtub effect. There’s simply less room for floodwater.

  • In Spring, contractors building a new high school pumped sludge directly into Spring Creek.
  • TXDoT contractors are dumping dirt excavated from the FM2100 expansion project into the floodplain of Cedar Bayou near Huffman ISD schools.
  • Arrest warrants have been issued for the owner of land near Savelle and Sorters-McClellan Roads for putting massive amounts of fill in the floodplain and floodway of the San Jacinto West Fork. That’s right across the river from the Scarborough property.
floodplain fill
Cedar Bayou floodplain fill by TXDoT contractor. I saw a dozen trucks dump their loads in 20 minutes. Will we pay to move it twice?
Illegal fill in West Fork floodway and floodplain. Who will remove it? Owner has vanished.

Such abuses are typically committed by people who ignore the law to make a buck. Regulators should have prevented such abuses. But they rarely do; that encourages more abuses. And that forces us to deal with correcting them after the fact.

Eight and a half years after Harvey, it seems we are into full-on willful blindness.

Why We Take the Expensive Route

Collectively, we tend to spend on visible crises. That’s easier than root-cause modification.

Crying babies and devastated families deserve our help. But enforcing regulations and fining people on a construction site? That’s politically dangerous.

And that, in a sentence, explains why Americans continue to spend billions each year to fix preventable flooding.We have a systemic tendency to:

  1. Respond vigorously to visible crises
  2. Underinvest in politically difficult structural reforms
  3. Externalize downstream remediation costs while privatizing upstream profits.

Until we grapple with this issue, we will never get off the flood-mitigation treadmill.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/24/2026

3101 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.

Cedar Bayou Floodplain-Fill Operation Shifts into Higher Gear

2/23/26 – Harris County Engineering and the County Attorney appear to have stopped enforcing floodplain regulations. On February 5, 2026, I photographed TXDoT contractors excavating dirt to form a giant detention basin adjacent to the FM2100 expansion project in Huffman. From there, they trucked the dirt to a farm north of Huffman Eastgate Road, where they dumped it inside of the Cedar Bayou 100-year floodplain.

Despite violating county regulations, the floodplain fill operation has shifted into a higher gear. See details and pictures below.

Path of fill
TXDoT contractors are moving fill from upper left to lower center of this satellite photo near Hargrave High School (lower right).

Here’s what that means in terms of floodplains.

Dirt is moving from outside the floodplain to inside it and from one watershed to another.

When I reported the dumping in early February, the County told me that it violated floodplain regs. The regs became effective July 9, 2019 shortly after Harvey. They prohibit the addition of fill to floodplains without 1:1 compensatory mitigation in the same floodplain, and preferably on the same property. I reprinted the relevant text below verbatim. To see the entire document, click here.


Section 4.07(e) on Page 45

“Any reduction in floodplain storage or conveyance capacity within the 0.2 percent or 500‐year floodplain must be offset with a hydraulically equivalent (one‐to‐one) volume of mitigation sufficient to offset the reduction. The reduction may result from development or the placement of fill within the 0.2% floodplain or 500‐year floodplain.”

“Such mitigation shall be within the same watershed and shall be provided on the same property or within the same hydrologic sub‐watershed or at an alternate site meeting the approval of the County Engineer. A full hydrological and hydraulic analysis must be submitted to support a request for mitigation outside the boundaries of the property being developed. This requirement does not apply to Coastal Areas where floodplain fill mitigation is not an issue.”


According to the Harris County sources, the contractors don’t have a permit. And to get one they will have to perform mitigation as described above.

Pace of Fill Activity Doubles Compared to Feb. 5 Post

I saw a dozen trucks enter the dump site within a 20-minute period today. That’s roughly double the pace I observed on 2/5/26. I took all the pictures below after lunch today.

Cedar Bayou Floodplain Fill Operation by TXDoT. As three trucks were leaving site, more were entering.
They would open a hatch in the belly of the bed and spread their fill while driving in a circle to return to the excavation site without stopping.
It was a constant parade. As one truck left, another would enter. I counted a dozen trucks in 20 minutes.
The dump site lies near the Luce Inter-Basin Transfer Canal (lower left).
Note fill reaching treetop level at the rear of the property. Portable lights let the operation continue after dark according to nearby residents.

Photos Taken Minutes Later at Excavation Site

A little more than 3 miles to the northwest, up FM2100, the pace of fill activity was even more evident. Today, I saw two lines of trucks waiting for fill at the excavation site.

First of two lines at the excavation site had eight trucks lined up loading or leaving for the dump site.
The second line had nine trucks lined up.

Where Has Enforcement Gone?

Operations this big can’t be overlooked by accident. Sources familiar with Harris County Engineering say they still review plans and issue permits, but they rarely, if ever, check on compliance under the current administration. And the County Attorney rarely prosecutes these cases; he’s running for a new job.

So, the source says, people in both offices collect paychecks, but rarely bother to work. I mention this, because it’s an election year and we have a chance to change that.

Why Adding Floodplain Fill is Prohibited

It seems as though the current administration has already forgotten why county commissioners revised the regulations in 2019. Almost half the 154,170 homes that flooded during Harvey in Harris County were outside mapped floodplains. That was largely a function of a) fill added to floodplains combined with b) hopelessly out-of-date flood maps.

As one of the most seasoned engineers in the region told me, the “bathtub effect” was real. “Put enough fill in the floodplain and it will displace water, flooding someone else’s property.” He also said, “The fill can also disrupt flow patterns, forcing floodwater onto neighbor’s property.”

He cited the case of one family nearby that floods constantly now because of fill added to a neighbor’s property. But he sees issues like this all over the region.

Coming Next

More on that and similar cases tomorrow when I talk about the expensive “Flood-Mitigation Treadmill.” Most people don’t realize how expensive correcting problems like the one above are compared to preventing them in the first place. Sometimes it’s hard for mitigation to keep up with the people constricting floodplains. Don’t miss it.

Harris County did not return phone calls or emails today in response to enquiries about the floodplain fill shown above.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/23/26

3100 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.

Arrest Warrants Issued in Floodway, Floodplain Fill Case

2/21/26 – A person believed responsible for illegally placing massive amounts of fill in the floodway and floodplain of the San Jacinto West Fork near the intersection of Savelle and Sorters-McClellan Roads has yet to pay fines or remove the fill. He has also failed to appear at multiple hearings on the case, resulting in warrants being issued for his arrest.

New Aerial Photos Show Fill Not Yet Removed

Aerial photos taken on 2/20/26 show the site has not changed since Houston Public Works and the Houston Police raided it in December and caught several large trucks dumping their loads. Heavy equipment has been removed, but the fill has not.

Looking N at most of site. Savelle Rd. on right. Sorters in top right. Public road now gated (red circle).

Yesterday, the gate was locked. High, solid fences blocked views of the property from the roads. And a gate now blocks the entrance to a public street on the south side of the property.


Response from City About Status

District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger’s Chief of Staff Dustin Hodges responded as follows to my inquiry as to the status of enforcement actions against the owners. I have reprinted it verbatim below.

“Here’s the latest I received from Floodplain Management on the Savell Rd property.”

We have continued to monitor the site on a weekly basis and have issued citations to Mr. Rene Martinez each week. I have not had any further communication with Mr. Martinez since our last meeting on December 19, 2025.

Mr. Martinez has failed to appear at his scheduled arraignment dates, resulting in two warrants being issued for his arrest and three failures to appear.

I have sent certified notices to both Mr. Martinez and the property owner of 139 Lakeside Street, whom I believe may also be involved in the illegal fill dirt activity. Additionally, the residents of 139 Lakeside Street have installed a gate across the public roadway, which has blocked our access to the site.

We will continue our efforts to bring the property into compliance and welcome any assistance from the Houston Police Department or the City of Houston Legal Department that can be provided to help resolve this matter.


History of Issue

I first posted about this issue in December after a citizen sent me a tip about unusual truck traffic at the site. The very next day, Houston Public Works and the Houston Police Department raided the site. They found multiple violations and caught several trucks dumping their loads.

Harris County Flood Warning System records show that this location had the highest flooding in the county during Hurricane Harvey – a whopping 27 feet above the normal water level.

Filling floodplains and floodways is dangerous because it constricts and displaces floodwaters, flooding properties somewhere else, such as Costco and Main Event on the other side of the river.

What Regulations Say

And that’s why City of Houston regulations prohibit bringing fill dirt into floodways and floodplains. Chapter 19 Div. 2 Sec. 19.34 states:

  • No fill may be added to a 100-year floodplain.
  • Any loss of floodplain-storage volume must be mitigated onsite.

Floodways enjoy even more protection. Chapter 19 Div. 3 Sec. 19.43(a-b3) states:

  • “No floodplain development permit shall be issued for a development to be located in any floodway…” 
  • “The development will not impede the flow of floodwaters.”
  • “The development will not result in an adverse effect on the conveyance capacity during the occurrence of the base flood.”

The City says the property owner(s) did not have a permit to place the fill.

Note height of fill. It’s as high as many small trees.
Immediately N of filled property. Note how swampy the area is. West Fork at top of frame.
Looking S toward US59 bridge over West Fork and its confluence with Spring Creek.
Looking NE. Note height of fill which stretches all the way to the West Fork (left).

At this point, we do not yet know where the fill came from or whether the owner(s) have the ability to remove it. More news to follow. Harris County Appraisal District Records show that the area being filled belongs to at least two couples, who have acquired multiple properties within it.

Harris County Appraisal District Map of general area with fill.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/21/2026

3098 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.