5/02/26 – There’s still time to sign the petition against Scarborough’s 5300+ acre floodplain development upstream from the Lake Houston Area between Spring Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork. One of the region’s leading hydrologists told me that if it gets developed, it would be like aiming a firehose at Humble and Kingwood.
Why This Land Should Not Be Developed
This is one of the most flood-prone areas in the entire Houston region. See this 30-second video of wetlands that lace the area.
Scarborough Area in center of FEMA’s Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Crosshatch = floodway, Aqua = 100-year floodplain, Brown = 500-year.
New flood maps show the situation is even worse than it appears above. The area is about half the size of Kingwood and exceedingly flat.
Looking NW at Scarborough property at confluence of Spring Creek (l) and San Jacinto West Fork (r).
Near the confluence, dry land would be under at least 25 feet of water in another flood like Harvey.
From FEMA Base Flood Elevation Viewer
Just this morning, at 8 AM after a mere 4 inches of rain, the Harris County Flood Warning System showed the river was in danger of overflowing near the bridge – the only such channel in the area.
This is just a dangerous place to build, at least in my opinion.
GLO Backing Developer
Yet strangely, the Texas General Land Office, which is responsible for $14 billion dollars of HUD flood-mitigation money in Texas, is a financial partner in the development. Even worse, the GLO refuses to explain why, what the terms of its investment are, and how much of your tax money it has invested. Print out the poster below, and share it with your friends and family.
For a high res PDF suitable for printing, click here.
Please Sign Petition NOW
But above all, if you haven’t yet signed the petition protesting this development, do it NOW!
A Friendswood executive once told me they looked at extending Kingwood Drive across this property but gave up on the idea because it would have cost too much to do it safely.
So, read the details of the petition at Change.org and please sign it. It will only take a minute and could save your home someday. Not to mention, a lot of your tax dollars now.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/2/2026
3168 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/DJI_20260502092307_0995_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2026-05-02 19:45:202026-05-02 21:37:18Still Time to Sign Petition Against Upstream Floodplain Development
4/28/26 – To everyone in southern Montgomery County and the Lake Houston Area: please consider signing the petition discussed below concerning the proposed Scarborough Development. It may help preserve vital floodplains in your area, thereby reducing your flood risk.
Background on Proposed Development
A Dallas-based developer named Scarborough has purchased 5,300+ acres of land at the confluence of the San Jacinto West Fork and Spring Creek. Hydrologists say that developing this land would be like aiming a fire hose at the Humble/Kingwood area. Backwater effects could also increase flood risk for Montgomery County residents.
Harris County and City of Houston have already unanimously passed resolutions opposing development of this flood-prone land. However, the Texas General Land Office and School Land Board have reportedly pledged $140 million to help develop it.
Petition to Stop Government Secrecy Surrounding the Plan
Unfortunately, the GLO and Attorney General Paxton’s office are concealing details of how the state is spending your tax dollars to flood you.
Please forward this link to everyone you know in the area and anyone concerned about open, transparent government.
Also, please talk this issue up at community events. The poster below summarizes key points.
Here’s the area purchased by Scarborough. See area outlined in red below.
Blue and gray shaded areas represent flood zones.
Cypress Creek, Spring Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork all converge here. Flood heights could reach 18 to 25 feet above dry land in this area.
Base Flood Elevations near confluence
Here are FEMA’s CURRENT effective floodplains and floodways.
Crosshatch = Floodway, Aqua = 100-year floodplain, Brown – 500-year floodplain.
However, keep in mind that that map is in the process of being replaced. New maps show even more of the property in more dangerous flood zones.
MAAPnext shows new flood maps based on post-Harvey data, with a slider that lets you see how much floodplains and floodways expanded across the southern portion of Scarborough’s land.
Please Help: Sign Petition Now
By signing this petition, you are advocating for responsible development that prioritizes the welfare of our community in Spring, TX and the surrounding areas of Kingwood, Humble and the Lake Houston area by preserving this land and keeping it as a green space.
Please help prevent a potentially disastrous project and ensure a more secure future for us all. Please sign this petition to make a stand against the Scarborough Lane Development. Now! It will only take a minute.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/28/2026
3164 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/20250417-Ryko-property-copy-1.jpg?fit=1100%2C659&ssl=16591100adminadmin2026-04-28 15:34:292026-04-30 19:57:05Sign Petition to Reduce Your Flood Risk, Protect Floodplain
2/4/26 – Yesterday, the Houston Planning and Development Department called to say that Romerica has withdrawn the variance request for its plat application from the Houston Planning Commission’s agenda for 2/5/26. So, if you were planning to go downtown to protest it tomorrow, there is no longer any need.
Kingwood Residents Concerned about Floodplain Development
Local residents in Kingwood Lakes, Barrington and Trailwood Villages became concerned when they discovered that Romerica was back with the third-iteration of plans to build in the floodway and floodplains of the San Jacinto West Fork. Romerica was seeking plat approval to build a 500,000 square-foot, two-hotel complex with 125 large-luxury villas in a swamp.
The company claimed it would elevate all structures and 6000 feet of roads 60 feet wide on the northern-most part of their property.
During the debate about their plans with Houston Public Works, it became clear that Romerica had not complied with regulations requiring them to post signage at the entrance to their property that notified the public of their plans.
Unanswered Questions, Concerns
Yesterday, I received a phone call and email from John P. Cedillo in the City’s Planning and Development Department.
His email said, “The application for River Grove GP [General Plan] has been withdrawn by the applicant and will not be considered at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on February 5. The applicant will need to re-submit and re-start the process including the notice requirements, such as notice letters and notice signs erected for the site.”
In my opinion, this is good news. Many questions remain about Romerica’s plans. For instance, they claimed the hotel would be a Fairmont. But after days of trying, I could not find anyone at Fairmont who would confirm that.
A source in the hotel business told me that the reputational damage to a hotel chain would be so great if one of its properties flooded that they typically have higher standards than even city and county regulators. That’s especially true of high-end international chains, such as Fairmont. Word of a flooded Fairmont Hotel would spread around the world overnight because they draw international clients.
Another source called the proposed development “on the wrong side of the tracks.” That was not a slur against Kingwood, just an acknowledgment of market potential for the planned location. He said that all chains look at traffic counts as their first location-screening tool. “If it’s not on or near an interstate freeway, they don’t want to hear about it,” he said.
Even though plat approvals have to do with street layouts, residents were concerned about the potential to make flooding worse in the area at the south end of Woodland Hills Drive – especially in an area where the thoroughfare itself, i.e., the evacuation route, would be under water in a 100-year flood.
In fact, it last went under water in May 2024.
Romerica proposes to build where water reached treetops to the right of Barrington in May 2024.
Ronnie Bulanek, a Barrington resident said of Romerica’s latest setback, “It is great news. It will/should be very difficult to develop the land in question without dramatic consequences for the neighboring communities. Until the Lake Houston dam and other flood mitigation issues are completed nothing should be developed in this parcel.”
For More Information
Romerica is the same company that previously proposed building 50-story high-rises next to the floodway of the West Fork. The Army Corps nixed that plan.
Romerica later proposed building homes on stilts. But the company ran into challenges with the Planning Commission then, too.
For more information on Romerica’s proposal, see their presentations which include schematics:
Those concerns were only exacerbated when Bloch obtained Romerica’s preliminary drainage analysis the day of the last Planning Commission Meeting on 1/22/26. It raised more questions than answers. Luckily, the Planning Commission deferred action on Romerica’s variance request at that meeting, too. District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger had it pulled from the Commission’s agenda.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/4/26
3081 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/20260119-FEMA-Floodplains-for-Romerica.jpg?fit=1100%2C870&ssl=18701100adminadmin2026-02-04 14:24:052026-02-04 14:40:31Romerica Withdraws Plat Application for Proposed Floodplain Development
12/22/25 – The Texas General Land Office (GLO), which manages state and federal money for flood mitigation, has invested an undisclosed sum of money in a flood-prone development at the confluence of Spring Creek, Cypress Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork. See below.
From FEMA’s Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Brown = 500-year floodplain, Aqua = 100-year, Cross-hatched = Floodway. Map dated 2014.Floodplains will likely expand 50-100% in updated maps based on Atlas 14.
On the surface, the GLO investment appears to be a conflict of interest. Dig deeper and two separate mandates for the GLO emerge that are not reconciled in state law:
Subsequent efforts to verify the GLO involvement in this project revealed that the School Land Board, a group within the GLO, invested in the property. However, the GLO refused to reveal the amount of the investment (and did not say that the investment had been revoked as Toth’s press release claimed).
GLO Statement Admits Involvement, But Sheds Little Light
The terse GLO statement below raises more questions than it answers.
“This investment was approved by the School Land Board (SLB) pursuant to Chapter 51 of the Texas Natural Resources Code (TNRC). The GLO’s investment in this project through the SLB as a limited partner was contingent upon Montgomery County’s approval of the drainage study, which was successfully completed in July 2025. As Land Commissioner, I am committed to preventing future flooding. We are meeting with stakeholders and have heard the local concerns regarding this project. Our agency is dedicated to serving the best interests of the community.” Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, M.D.
Conflicting Mandates
More exploration revealed that the GLO wears two hats. It simultaneously manages flood-mitigation programs and invests School Land Board capital – sometimes in flood-prone land – under conflicting statutory obligations and fiduciary standards.
Those functions report to the same elected official – Dawn Buckingham, M.D. They are:
Flood-Mitigation
Under various statutes and federal requirements, the GLO:
Administers U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant funds for Disaster Relief and Flood Mitigation (HUD CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT)
Manages large-scale flood mitigation and buyout programs
Works with local entities such as Harris County Flood Control District, to reduce flooding
Evaluates flood risk, vulnerability, and benefit-cost ratios.
In this role, the GLO must:
Reduce flood risk
Avoid repetitive loss
Comply with federal mitigation standards
Justify investments of tax dollars based on public safety and resilience.
School Finance
Separately, under the Texas Constitution and Natural Resources Code Chapter 51, the GLO (through the School Land Board) must:
Manage land and money as a trust
Maximize long-term returns
Avoid sacrificing value for unrelated policy goals.
The real conflict here may be competing, internal statutory silos.
Texas law reportedly does not require the GLO’s flood-mitigation knowledge, data, or policy goals to constrain its school-investment decisions.
There seems to be NO:
Statutory cross-check
Internal requirement preventing such conflict
Duty to reconcile flood-risk mitigation goals with land monetization.
The same agency can therefore:
Fund buyouts downstream while…
Profiting upstream from development pressure that increases downstream risk…
…without violating any explicit statute.
Three Potential Conflicts
From a governance perspective, this arrangement creates at least three tensions:
First, the GLO:
Possesses detailed flood-risk data in its mitigation role.
But it is not legally required to make investment decisions that consider that data.
Second, the State can:
Invest capital in flood-prone land at a discount
Benefit from development-driven appreciation
Later deploy flood-mitigation grants funded by taxpayers to address resulting impacts.
Third, the conflict creates the appearance of policy incoherence. The State appears to be:
Subsidizing flood risk on one side of the balance sheet
Funding mitigation on the other.
Why This Remains Legal
According to ChatGPT, this dual role persists because “the Texas Constitution elevates school-fund fiduciary duties to near-absolute status.”
Absent a statute saying, “School fund investments shall be consistent with state flood-mitigation objectives,” the GLO operates in parallel lanes and pursues investments with the highest rates of return.
This case makes a powerful example of conflicts of interest. However, I have another concern: transparency. Two state legislators and multiple residents have requested information about the state’s involvement with little luck.
Both Toth and State Representative Charles Cunningham have reached out to the GLO on behalf of downstream constituents. But so far, neither legislator has received an explanation.
Even worse, residents’ FOIA requests (going back to October) have been denied and appealed to the State Attorney General’s office, which denied them also. Three months of inquiry have resulted only in the one terse statement printed above.
This is an absolute PR disaster fraught with multiple potential conflicts of interest. The GLO is creating the appearance of a coverup even if none exists.
Bob Rehak
Need for Full Disclosure Now
The State and GLO should insist on full disclosure now. That includes any political contributions made by the land owners or sellers (directly, or indirectly through family members, employees or PACs) to state officials, especially those connected to the School Land Board.
We also need to verify whether the developer really received approval of its drainage impact analysis in July of 2025, as claimed in the GLO statement above. The so-called “approval” letter I have from the Montgomery County engineer dated July 2025 (when Ryko still owned the land) is best characterized as preliminary. It says, “Here are three pages of issues you need to address to get approval.” It does NOT give full, final approval.
One issue MoCo raises is adequate emergency access during 500-year, Atlas-14 flood events. But a Townsend Blvd. extension across Spring Creek was taken off Montgomery County’s 2025 road bond to help deter development of Scarborough’s property.
To continue backing this Scarborough deal may make better financial sense than public policy. As one public official told me, “Typical government…trying to fix problems it creates!”
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/22/25
3037 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Ryko-Flood-Hazards.jpg?fit=1200%2C773&ssl=17731200adminadmin2025-12-22 17:02:012025-12-22 19:40:05State Agency Responsible for Flood Mitigation Invests in Flood-Prone Development
12/19/25 – Despite substantial hurdles, floodplain development can be very profitable for patient developers with deep pockets, even if only a small percentage of their land is developed.
For instance, Scarborough Lane Development/San Jacinto Preserve LP has purchased more than 5,000 acres of land in floodplains and floodways near the confluence of four waterways. They include the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, and Turkey Creek.
Base map from seller’s preliminary drainage analysis. Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve property outlined in red.Shades of blue represent floodways and floodplains on property.
Buyer Says It Paid $140 Million for Property Appraised at Less Than $1 Million
Scarborough claims it paid close to $140 million for the property – 8X higher than the Montgomery County Appraisal District (MCAD) places the market value of the land and 175X higher than the appraised value. See below.
Even more stunning, Ryko, the company that sold the property to Scarborough/SJP, produced a preliminary engineering study that suggested only 38% of the land was developable because it has such high flood risk.
So, in what galaxy does this make economic sense?
Actually, it makes perfect sense – if you understand how the game is played.
Spread Makes Bread
Said another way, buy low; sell high.
The exceedingly low appraised value of floodplain land helps developers acquire and hold the land, sometimes for decades – at a very low tax cost while they work out regulatory issues. And when they do, the step change in value is so great, that if only 20% of the land is developable, they likely still make money.
This is according to ChatGPT, which costed out details of several development scenarios for me. One was even profitable with only 10% developable land.
A wide spread between acquisition costs and potential land sales after all permits and mitigation costs are accounted for is one of the main reasons why developers target floodplain land.
The dynamic is well understood in land economics and is particularly visible in fast-growing regions like Montgomery County.
Floodplain land often sells at a steep discount relative to nearby uplands because of:
Regulatory limits (floodway vs. floodplain)
Engineering costs (fill, detention, bridges)
Uncertainty (permitting, litigation, political risk)
Time value (increased holding costs because of longer periods before land becomes salable).
With steep, discounted prices in mind, even modest success—e.g., making 20–30% of a tract buildable — can make the entire investment profitable. Anything above that is gravy.
Why Floodplain Land Produces Unusually Large Spreads
Floodplain land tends to be priced as “mostly unusable.” Once permits are secured, the buildable portion prices like normal land. But the remainder can still be monetized as detention, mitigation, or open space.
Better yet for the developer, some of the land designated as green space may even be developed years later as the pain of flooding dims and political winds shift.
This can create huge “step” changes in land value.
Factors that Amplify Spread
In Texas, several factors amplify this spread. Consider, for instance:
Timber Exemptions that Lower Carrying Costs:
Developers pay only a few dollars in taxes per acre per year. On the five parcels above, taxes average $148 per acre per year. That makes patience very cheap. A well capitalized developer can afford to wait years while working out permitting issues.
Timber exemptions also mask speculative intent. On paper, the land looks like a passive forestry holding, not a development play.
Reliance on Post-Development Mitigation at Public Expense:
Some developers shift part of their mitigation costs onto the public. For example, some developers in Montgomery County have avoided building detention basins by using questionable flood routing studies. Even the former Montgomery County engineer criticized the practice. As flood peaks build over time, downstream residents clamor for mitigation. But it comes at public expense. So the developer has effectively externalized some of its costs.
Permissive Local Drainage Rules and Lax Enforcement:
This is especially true in counties that surround fast growing metropolitan areas. Some counties around Houston still use drainage criteria from the 1980s to help attract development.
Sometimes gaps in regulations cause flooding as Elm Grove discovered twice in 2019. Many floodplain developers tend to exploit such gaps in regulations and then claim they are complying with all applicable regulations.
Risk/Reward Ratio Attracts Only Certain Types of Developers
Floodplain land tends to attract well-capitalized, patient developers with a 10–20 year horizon. For those with deep pockets and powerful partners, economics may work even if 90% of the land never becomes buildable.
This is not accidental; it is a rational, well-understood land-banking strategy.
However, the spread only turns into profit ifrisk converts to permission. It collapses if floodway limits are strictly enforced, mitigation costs surge, public opposition blocks approvals, or political sentiment hardens after major floods.
In such cases, floodplain land can become a capital trap, not a bargain. But still…
The large spread between low purchase cost and high potential value is a major magnet for developers.
Courageous reporting, such as hers, makes flood risk highly visible and politically salient. And that makes the spread harder to monetize. Witness recent resolutions by Harris County Precinct 3 and the City of Houston. It will be interesting to see Scarborough’s next moves.
Next Up
I am working on a series of posts about floodplain development. Next, I’ll examine the seductive promise of green space. Floodplain developers often promote abundant, recreational green space to early buyers in a development.
But just as often, they try to monetize that green space during the latter stages of a development – green space they promised early buyers would remain green forever. Check out the warning-sign checklists in my next post before you buy property to see if your green space could someday vanish.
Scarborough property near US59 bridge west of Kingwood. San Jacinto West Fork on right.During Harvey, water was 27 feet above the level you see here.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/19/2025
3034 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/20250622-DSC_2635.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2025-12-19 10:41:562025-12-19 11:00:13The Profit in Floodplain Development Explained
12/17/25 – This morning, Houston City Council unanimously passed a motion opposing development on 5,000 acres owned by Scarborough Lane Development/San Jacinto Preserve immediately west of Kingwood at the confluence of Spring Creek, Cypress Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork.
In opposing the development, the resolution cited:
“Catastrophic flooding rendering the tract unmistakably unfit for residential development”
“Potential liability associated with placing future residents in an area of heightened risk for property damage, personal injury, and loss of life”
The need to build homes to higher standards than Montgomery County (MoCo) currently requires
Substantially increased flood risks for existing residents of both Montgomery and Harris Counties.
The resolution, proposed by District E Council Member Fred Flickinger, also said “the highest and best use of this property should be evaluated for flood-mitigation” and “public park purposes.”
Today’s resolution closely matches one adopted unanimously by Harris County Commissioners Court on 12/11/25. However, neither resolution effectively kills the development. But they do send a strong message that may lead to a better outcome for nearby and downstream residents. See more below.
Scarborough’s Position
Scarborough claims that they would develop the property responsibly and observe all local floodplain regulations and development standards.
I asked their president, Ryan Burkhardt, whether they would observe the highest standards (referring to Harris County standards versus MoCo’s). He said several times that they would observe local regulations.
Harris County prohibits fill in the 500-year floodplain; Montgomery County allows it.
Harris County sets the height of living space at the 500-year flood level; Montgomery County sets it at one foot above the 100-year floodplain.
Burkhardt did say that his development plans are based on Atlas 14 statistics. But he also said that they are still at least a couple years away from detailed plans that show exactly where they plan to build houses relative to those floodplains.
Burkhardt also asked me to communicate to readers that his company plans to leave 52% of their acreage as green space. He objected to the characterization of the development as a 5,000 acre development and repeatedly said that they plan only to develop a subset of those 5,000 acres.
Detail from presentation to Houston District E and Harris County Precinct 3
Given the fact that homes nearby on higher ground have already flooded, it will be difficult to develop new homes safely at lower elevations. I asked a hydrologist who has studied development in flood-prone areas whether there was any way to develop this property safely.
He replied that the only way to do that would be to elevate the homes on stilts. That way, when floods rise, water can safely pass underneath the homes without obstruction.
But that may be difficult for large homes. Burkhardt said he plans to build large homes on large lots similar to those that are already in Bender’s Landing Estates. HAR.com shows that the median living area for homes in Benders Landing Estates is approximately 4,522 square feet.
Typical homes in Bender’s Landing Estates
Listings in the area commonly show homes ranging from about 4,000 to 9,900+ square feet in size, with many properties built at 4,000–6,000+ square feet.
Green-Space Guarantees?
In our discussion, Burkhardt repeatedly came back to the 52% of the property that he says he would leave as green space.
That’s a selling point. We have certainly seen developers throughout the region say similar things. Living next to natural areas is a strong inducement for buyers looking at expensive homes.
But often, after developers sell the homes on higher ground, they start looking for ways to monetize the green space that they promised would remain green forever.
I’m not saying Scarborough would do that. But it’s a common practice. In fact, it’s already happened to several homeowners I talked to in Benders Landing Estates. It’s also happening to people at The Commons of Lake Houston. There, the developer fought the City of Houston for ten years (all the way to the Texas Supreme Court) for the right to build on floodplain land that he promised would remain recreational forever.
Two common strategies to guarantee land remains green forever are:
To put conservation easements on it through a group such as the Bayou Land Conservancy.
Turn it into public parks by deeding it to the City, County or State for that purpose.
However, Burkhardt was not willing to commit to either alternative.
$140 Million Mystery: Who is the Joint Venture Partner?
In my conversation with Burkhardt, he said that his project was a “joint venture.” However, he refused to tell me who the partner was.
I have learned from three other sources that the Texas General Land Office (GLO) may have something to do with the project. One other knowledgeable source said it may have something to do with a fund managed by the Governor, which the GLO administers.
Several sources told me that $140 million tax dollars were at stake. However, Burkhardt repeatedly denied that and said his company paid “close to” $140 million for the property. Hmmmm.
If this was such a good deal and if the GLO was involved, you think they would trumpet their investment. However, nearby residents who would be affected by the development had to file a FOIA request to see what the GLO’s involvement was.
As of this afternoon, neither the Attorney General, nor the GLO have responded with any records. I guess they must be embarrassing to someone.
If the state has no involvement, why don’t they just say so?
But they’re not saying “We are not involved.” They’re saying, “We have the right to keep our involvement secret.”
GLO Press Office Also Non-Responsive
Meanwhile, I couldn’t obtain any records either. I personally contacted the GLO press office for information. And the press office did not respond to the request. They said they needed “more time to research it.” However, the person responsible has since stopped taking phone calls or responding to emails re: the status. So, at this time, several serious questions remain:
What roles do the GLO and the Governor’s offices play in this “joint venture,” if any?
Is “joint venture” a fair characterization of the relationship, if any?
If the state is involved, is the involvement purely financial?
If so, how much money is involved?
Where does the money come from?
Are any federal dollars involved?
Did the state legislature appropriate the money or is it part of an official’s discretionary budget?
What happens to any money committed if the developer cannot secure the necessary permits?
Why would an agency that manages disaster relief/flood mitigation for the state and federal government support floodplain development?
Floodplain map of Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve property
If the state invested $140 million in this property, I say we should convert it to a park and put this issue to rest in perpetuity.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/17/25
3032 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/20251211-DJI_20251211085941_0651_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-12-17 18:28:112025-12-18 09:17:45Houston City Council Unanimously Passes Resolution Opposing Scarborough Development
11/4/2025 – FEMA floodplain maps contradict a claim made by Scarborough Development/San Jacinto Preserve in a presentation made to the City of Houston and Harris County officials on 10/29/25.
The developer recently bought 5,316 acres, mostly in the floodplains and floodways of Spring and Cypress Creeks, and the San Jacinto West Fork. The land lies in both Montgomery County and the City of Houston’s extra territorial jurisdiction. The developer also wants to build a bridge into Harris County.
However, superimposing their development plan on FEMA’s current floodplain maps developed before Atlas 14 contradicts that claim. Why?
The extent of proposed development matches the limits of pre-, not post-, Atlas 14 100-year floodplains.
Net: developing in this area is more dangerous than it may look. 500-year floodplains could soon become 100-year floodplains.
For more detail, see the discussion of Atlas-14’s history and the sequence of maps below.
A Brief History of Atlas 14
FEMA’s current floodplain maps for this area date to 2014, four years BEFORE the start of Atlas 14 in Texas. And to my knowledge, FEMA has not yet released new flood maps based on Atlas 14 for this region.
NOAA began updating rainfall precipitation frequency estimates in 2004; they called the effort “Atlas 14.” But NOAA didn’t update Texasstatistics until 2018. Such rainfall estimates form the basis for flood maps.
In Montgomery County (MoCo), pre/post estimates for the standard 100-year/24-hour rainfall varied by more than a third. MoCo adopted Atlas 14 values of ~16.1 inches for the 24-hr, 1% storm (at Conroe), up from the previous standard of ~12 inches. That’s an increase of 4.1 inches or 34%.
Also consider that Montgomery County has been one of the fastest growing counties in the region and in America. Its population has grown by almost a third (31%) since 2018. That population growth comes with a growth of impervious cover (roofs, driveways, streets, parking lots, etc.) that doesn’t soak up rainfall.
I’m not aware of any recent studies that show the cumulative impact of additional rainfall and impervious cover together with a deficit of detention.
Given those issues, common sense says flood elevations would increase. And in fact, preliminary guidance from Harris County indicates that floodplains will expand by 50% to 100% when FEMA releases updated flood maps based on Atlas 14.
New Plans Show Development Extending to Old 100-Year Floodplain
When I first saw the developer’s new plans, the plans didn’t seem to match the claim that they would only develop land “at or above the Atlas 14 100-year floodplain.” That made me suspicious. So, I performed an experiment.
I superimposed the developer’s plans over FEMA’s current (pre-Atlas 14) map dated 2014. I then varied the opacity of the layers in Adobe Photoshop so I could see how the two matched up. Long story short, they matched perfectly. See the sequence of images below.
Layer 1: From FEMA’s Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Scarborough property is in center between Spring Creek (diagonal) and West Fork (right). Brown areas = 500-year floodplain. Aqua = 100-year. Striped = floodway.
Next, I superimposed the development plan that Scarborough presented to City of Houston and Harris County.
Layer 2: Gray areas with waffle pattern represent claimed “net developable area.”Red = property boundary.
Then, I varied the opacity of the development plan until you could see the floodplains behind it.
Composite with partial transparency of overlay
Enlargement clearly shows thatdevelopment stops at the old, pre-Atlas-14, 100-year floodplain.
White lines from 2014 FEMA map form boundary between 100- and 500-year floodplains. And waffle patterns from developer’s plans stop at white lines.
New maps reflecting higher rainfall rates and more impervious cover will likely show those white lines cutting well into the brown so-called developable areas, if not eliminating some altogether.
Where Did Developer’s Claim Come From?
So, where did the developer’s Atlas 14 claim come from? I have talked to three people who were in the meeting. Not one could tell me with certainty. They all expressed reservations and doubts about it.
I have also reached out to Scarborough several times to understand their position, but they have yet to return phone calls or emails.
So, I’m going to remain skeptical until I see proof of their claim and FEMA’s new Atlas 14 maps. FEMA may release them in 2026. But the proposed maps will then go through public comment and revision cycles. That could mean they won’t become official for at least another three years.
Make This An Election Issue
In my opinion, the best use for this property would be to turn it into a state park. That would help protect areas both up and downstream. With an election coming up next year, our representatives will have their ears to the ground. The time to start a letter-writing campaign is now. Contact all candidates.
Turn this into an election issue.
Make sure we elect someone who is more interested in protecting public safety than private profits.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/4/25
2989 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/20251103-CU-of-Southern-Area.jpg?fit=1100%2C561&ssl=15611100adminadmin2025-11-04 12:01:042025-11-04 14:53:30Floodplain Maps for 5,316 Acres West of Kingwood Contradict Developer’s Claim
Update 10/16/25 at 10am – The Planning Department intends to recommend deferring consideration of the general plan discussed below until after the City of Houston District E and Harris County Precinct 3 have have met with the new owner.
10/15/2025 – San Jacinto Preserve and a sister company, Scarborough Houston LLC have purchased approximately 5300 acres of land west of Kingwood from Ryko Development and its sister company, Pacific Indio Properties.
Ryko tried for years to develop the property, most of which is floodplains, floodways and wetlands where the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, Turkey Creek and Cypress Creek all converge.
Concerns about flooding may have triggered Ryko’s sale after a succession of rapid-fire setbacks:
May 2024 floods and the second largest release from Lake Conroe in the history of the SJRA rekindled memories of Harvey’s devastation.
A Townsen Blvd. extension through the property was taken off Montgomery County’s 2025 Road Bond at the request of neighboring residents and MoCo Precinct 3 commissioner Ritch Wheeler.
Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ramsey lined up against a bridge that would connect the area to Humble.
Sale of Property to San Jacinto Preserve, LP, Scarborough Houston LLC
Under public pressure on all sides and faced with the loss of connectivity and critical infrastructure support, Pacific Indio sold the property to San Jacinto Preserve, LP and Scarborough Houston LLC in August of this year. Here is the Special Warranty Deed.
Both buyers have common ownership and management, as with Ryko and Pacific Indio. Companies often try to limit liability by setting up different companies for different projects. That way, if one part of the empire encounters trouble, it won’t bring down other parts.
In this case, the names of two men keep showing up: Ryan Burkhardt and James R. Feagin. Among the many companies under their control:
Scarborough Lane Development appears to be at the top of the food chain and headquarters in Addison, TX, a north Dallas suburb. All the other companies list the same address. So even though company names change, the same people control everything.
Scarborough Lane Development’s website says its “always committed to protecting the environment.” And it brags that it is “capable of handling the most challenging development projects.” We shall see.
Land Virtually Covered by Floodplains, Floodways
This project will test their talent as this map in Ryko’s drainage analysis shows. Only the small, dark gray areas in the red outline are above the 500-year floodplain.
Ryko’s drainage impact analysis showed this map of floodplains, floodways and streams on their property (outlined in red).
But keep in mind, that the floodplains will soon expand when FEMA releases new maps based on data acquired after Hurricane Harvey. The floodplain mapping above is from 2014. It predates the Memorial Day Flood, Tax Day Flood, Harvey, and the May 2024 flood.
On Houston Planning Commission Agenda for 10/16/25
San Jacinto Preserve’s (SJP) general plan is on the Houston Planning Commission’s consent agenda for Thursday, 10/16/25. See below. Their engineers chose to render the floodplains in barely distinguishable shades of gray this time.
Lisa Clark, who Chairs the Houston Planning Commission, also represents the San Jacinto Preserve.
Both Harris County Precinct 3 and City of Houston District E have requested the planning commission to postpone consideration until they have had the opportunity to meet with the developer and learn more about the plans.
Here is the General Plan that SJP submitted to the Planning Commission.
This is a pretty high-level plan. It shows planned major thoroughfares, easements, pipelines, property boundaries, drill sites, and floodplains/floodways. But it’s not yet a plat that shows the street layouts of neighborhoods or homesites.
However, it does still show a Townsen Blvd. extension bridging across Spring Creek into Humble. That piqued my interest.
I called Mr. Burkhardt in Addison for clarification, but he did not return my phone call to confirm exactly what their plans are. So we shall have to wait and see. They will have challenges, no doubt.
MoCo Residents Successfully Protest Connectivity Plan
Yesterday, Benders Landing Estates (BLE) Property Owners Association (immediately north of the SJP property had a proposal on the Montgomery County Commissioners Court Agenda. SJP wanted to connect their new neighborhoods through a quiet, residential street (Shady Hills Landing Lane) in BLE.
They felt the street was not suited to handling the volume of traffic that a 5000+ acre development would generate. And their plan to block SJP access through the street succeeded.
Commissioners voted to abandon a one-foot-wide portion of Shady Hills Landing Lane in Benders Landing Estates Section 7. The land will vest to adjoining property owners, who can then effectively block SJP residents from exiting any new subdivisions through their property.
The San Jacinto Preserve development comes with inherent flood risks. At this point, we need to wait and see what they propose. At a minimum, it will likely include:
A new drainage-impact analysis
New plats that show the exact location of homes and their density relative to floodplains
Street layouts
The amount of impervious cover added
How much forest is lost
Flood-mitigation plans
A no-adverse-impact statement from Texas-certified engineers.
Environmental/wetlands studies including impacts on water quality in Lake Houston
Wetlands in SJP floodplain
One seasoned hydrologist held out little hope for the safe development of this property. She told me that developing it would be like aiming a firehose at Kingwood. She also suggested that the developer was putting “profits over people” and that the people of Humble and Kingwood should oppose it for their own safety. Check back often as news develops.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/15/25
2969 Days since Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20250622-DSC_2654.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2025-10-15 21:12:412025-10-16 18:02:16Developer Buys 5300 Acres of Floodplains, Floodways, Wetlands from Ryko
8/10/25 – A reader asked me, “How could the July 4 Guadalupe flood tragedy happen?”
He sent me an article that quoted an associate professor from Syracuse University who studied FEMA’s flood maps. The professor said that people knew Camp Mystic buildings were in the 100-year floodplain. Then she said, “It’s a mystery to me why they weren’t taking proactive steps to move structures away from the risk…”
The good professor obviously doesn’t live in Texas. In the endless news coverage of the tragedy, some little known statistics have gone undiscussed. They put the Guadalupe tragedy in a larger context.
We also have 6,258 hospitals, emergency medical services, fire stations, police stations and schools in 1% annual chance floodplains. Camp Mystic is hardly alone.
One in Five Texans Lives in a Floodplain
The Texas State Flood Plan shows that 5,884,100 people live in Texas floodplains (100- and 500-year). The last full census shows that 29,145,505 people live in Texas. That means 20% of the state’s population lives in a floodplain. One in five people!
Only 2% of the people living in the Guadalupe River Basin live in floodplains. But 42% of all the people living in the San Jacinto watershed live in a floodplain.
Column 3 shows people living in 100-year floodplain (1% annual chance) and Column 4 shows the number in the 500-year (.2% annual chance) floodplain.The last column shows percentages of 5,884,100 that totals in the 100+500 column comprise.
And don’t forget, those numbers are all based on pre-Atlas 14 maps. Reportedly, Atlas-14 maps will show floodplains growing 50-100%. And Atlas-15 maps are already in the works. So, the numbers above understate the real dimensions of the problem.
In my opinion, the real question is not “How could the tragedy happen?” It’s “How could it NOT happen?”
Still, the professor raises a valid question.
Problems Don’t Get This Big By Accident
Why do so many Texans live in floodplains? A combination of things has created this perfect storm. Since starting this blog, I’ve written 2,876 articles about flooding. And I see certain recurrent themes:
Collectively, we have a bad case of willful blindness. Regulations don’t keep pace with reality. For instance, Montgomery County still hasn’t adopted updated drainage regulations which have been on the table for years.
People make bad home building and home buying decisions because of antiquated flood maps.
Flooding happens just infrequently enough that when something goes wrong, people can blame it on climate change or God.
Not all of these may apply to the Guadalupe river basin. But I’ve documented them multiple times in the San Jacinto basin. They form a starting point for investigation into the Guadalupe tragedy.
A Problem Too Big To Solve
At this point, in my opinion, the State’s flooding problem is too big to solve. The state flood plan comes with a $54 billion price tag. But we don’t have a dedicated source of funding to address the problems in it.
Worse, collectively we:
Keep kicking the can down the road by making endless plans to solve flooding, but rarely implementing them.
Don’t assume others will protect you. Protect yourself. Start by demanding accurate estimates of risk that we paid for a long time ago. That would at least make people aware of the flood risk they truly face. Then they can decide whether to take that risk.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/10/2025
2903 Days since Hurricane Harvey
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/20240815-Residential-Bldgs-in-1-percent-Floodpolain.jpg?fit=1100%2C833&ssl=18331100adminadmin2025-08-10 15:45:072025-08-10 22:42:37Guadalupe Flood Tragedy: How Could It NOT Happen?
Colorado-based Century Land Holdings of Texas, LLC has started clearing land for Northpark South in Porter along the West Fork of the San Jacinto River at the west end of Northpark Drive.
Documents from the Houston Planning Commission, USGS, and FEMA; eyewitness accounts from nearby residents and flood professionals; and aerial photos indicate:
Most of the area is in floodplains defined decades ago and not updated since.
The entire area – and then some – went underwater during Harvey.
The entrance to the property near Northpark Drive and Sorters-McClellan Road sits in a bowl that rescue trucks could not get through during Harvey. That would make evacuation difficult in the event of another large flood.
Wetlands dot the property.
Abandoned sand mines may pose safety threats.
The same developer just completed a sister development called Northpark Woods across a drainage channel from this one. But so far, the gutsy developer has avoided any consequences for its risky gamble thanks in large part to a multi-year drought and interminable delays at FEMA releasing the new post-Harvey flood maps.
All Underwater During Harvey
Eyewitness accounts and damage reports indicate that Harvey floodwaters stretched about a third of a mile east of Sorters-McClellan to Northpark and Kingwood Place Drive. That’s on the high side of Sorters-McClellan; the new development will be on the low side.
Floodwaters in this area stopped at about 83 feet above sea level. However, the entrance to the new subdivision is at 75 feet, according to the USGS National Map. That means the water was an estimated 8 feet deep at the entrance.
One long-time resident in the area said, “The intersection of Sorters and Northpark sits in a bowl. It was not passable by Montgomery County Precinct 4 constables in an Army deuce and a half [used for high-water rescue]. Water from the river came right up past that intersection and continued up Northpark to just past the intersection of Kingwood Place Dr.”
Also on the high side of Sorters-McClellan, six of nine buildings at nearby Kingwood College flooded during Harvey. Restoration cost: $60 million!
Documents obtained from the Houston Planning Commission indicate that RG Miller is the engineer of record for Northpark South.
Bordering River and Sand Mines
During Harvey, 160,000 cubic feet per second rampaged down the West Fork behind this property.
Looking west past Sorters-McClellan Road toward what will become Northpark South.Note clearing starting in the middle in what used to be wetlands(see below).From the National Wetlands Inventory.Dark green area on right corresponds to cleared area above.Looking NW. Intersection of Northpark and Sorters-McClellan in lower left. Another subdivision called Northpark Woods by the same developer is in the upper right. West Fork San Jacinto and sand mines at top of frame.
Here’s what they hope to build on this property.
General plan submitted to Houston Planning Commission in 2021.
Current Floodplains Will Soon Expand
Most of the property already sits in floodway or floodplains. But the FEMA map below has not yet been updated to reflect new knowledge gained as a result of Memorial Day, Tax Day, Harvey and Imelda floods.
In fact, the 2014 date on the map below is misleading. It reflects an update of the base map, but the data that determines the extent of floodplains has not been updated since the 1980s, according to an expert familiar with Montgomery County flood maps.
FEMA and Harris County Flood Control have warned people that when new “post-Harvey” flood maps are released in the next year or two, floodplains will expand 50-100%. The floodway (striped area above) will likely expand into the 100-year floodplain (aqua). In turn, the 100-year will expand into the 500-year (tan). And the 500-year floodplain will extend past any of the colored areas.
That’s consistent with eyewitness accounts. And that could potentially put the entire property in floodplains.
Taking Advantage of Map-Update Window
The developer seems to be taking advantage of a window between post-Harvey flood surveys and release of the new maps.
I’m sure the developer’s lawyers would argue that they are complying with all current, applicable laws. But an ethical question arises. Will the new development expose unsuspecting homebuyers to greater-than-expected risk?
If so, why aren’t officials pushing to update maps and floodplain regs faster?
Could some officials be prioritizing economic development now over public safety later?
Certainly not all are. But many flood professionals worry about that.
Next to 5-Square Miles of Sand Mines
The new development sits next to the largest sand-mining complex on the San Jacinto West Fork. Sand mines in this area occupy almost five square miles. However, not all the mines are active. But they still show signs of heavy sediment pollution.
Looking E toward Sorters-McClellan from over West Fork. Northpark South is at top of frame beyond the sand pits.The operator of this mine decided not to fish its equipment out when they abandoned the site.More colors than Crayola. No telling what’s growing in these ponds.
Will routing drainage from Northpark South through these sand mines pose a safety risk for people downstream?
Will it be safe for kids to play or fish near these steep-sided pits?
Floodplain Development Called New Form of Redlining
Owner financing often accompanies floodplain developments. Such financing can bypass many flood-risk detection procedures that accompany traditional bank financing.
Then, when floods come, the people who can least afford to repair homes suffer the most and longest. Neighborhoods decay faster. And that makes it harder for people to recover their investments.
Years later, the public is left holding the bag. We are asked to fund expensive flood-mitigation projects that would not be necessary had the developer built in a safer area.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/11/2023
2265 Days since Hurricane Harvey
The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231109-DJI_0802.jpg?fit=1100%2C733&ssl=17331100adminadmin2023-11-11 12:04:192023-11-11 17:53:15Northpark South Starts Clearing Wetlands, Floodplain
