Tag Archive for: glo

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

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

Roaring Through the Cracks

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

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

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

Tragically, it was all preventable.

How It Happened

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

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

From MCAD-tx.org

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

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

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

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

Vision for the Future: Montgomery County Lake District

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governments at All Levels Could Benefit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/29/26

3226 Days since Hurricane Harvey

HCFCD Director Tina Petersen Keeps Her Job … For Now

5/15/2026 – At their 5/14/2026 meeting, Harris County Commissioners discussed the job performance of the Flood Control District Executive Director, Tina Petersen, Ph.D. After coming out of executive session, Commissioners announced that they were taking “no action” re: Dr. Petersen.

Petersen has come under increasing pressure to produce results on $322 million worth of projects funded by HUD Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Relief (CDBG-DR). They have a looming February 28, 2027 deadline. And Petersen’s own data shows many of the projects will miss that deadline, thus jeopardizing federal funding.

Dr. Petersen under pressure as she addressed commissioners

Hidalgo Putting Petersen’s Performance Back on Agenda

Despite taking “no action” on Petersen this week, in a lunch-time press conference yesterday, County Judge Lina Hidalgo, said she was putting Petersen’s performance back on the agenda for the June Commissioner’s Court meeting.

Here is a transcript of the Petersen portion of Hidalgo’s press conference.

Addressing schedule slippage on CDBG-DR projects with tight deadlines, Hidalgo said, “The best I can do is place my trust in somebody else that might bring a different kind of energy, a sense of urgency and a new relationship with our partners at other levels of government.”

Hidalgo referred to Petersen’s “unforced errors” and added, “Every day that passes is a day in which perhaps we’re not working as quickly as we could be working.”

When asked about the probability of meeting the General Land Office deadline of February 28, 2027, Hidalgo replied,

“Given where we are and given the reports we have so far, I don’t see how they [the DR projects] will be done on time.”

Lina Hidalgo

Referring to other leaders at the federal and state levels who will have to make a decision about granting an extension, Hidalgo said, “If they’re anything like me, they will want to see a change [in leadership] as well. So that’s where I’m coming from.”

“I don’t think she’s the right person to continue to see this through. I don’t think that gives us the best shot at inspiring the confidence that the other levels of government will need to bet on Harris County,” Hidalgo added.

Ramsey Remains “Extremely Concerned”

Later, back in the meeting, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey announced that he “remains concerned” about whether Petersen is achieving results and being transparent.

“There have been some delays internally in terms of when we get projects out, when we get projects bid. That’s very clear and we can go through a lot of detail related to that,” said Ramsey. “I think the GLO’s concerned that we’re not doing our job. So that concerns me. I get concerned when they tell me that they’re having trouble getting data.”

Ramsey expressed concerns about how transparent HCFCD was being regarding the status of projects. In referring to a detailed report that commissioners demanded from Petersen in the previous meeting, he said to her, “I shouldn’t have had to come to Commissioner’s Court to get support from this court to ask you to provide information to the GLO.” Then he added, “Every bit of data that we requested … was specifically needed by the GLO and they were not getting it.” 

Speaking to Petersen, he said, “I’m not going to take for granted what you’re telling me. It’ll be verified by Administrator Carter [the country administrator] in great detail in the coming days.”

Ramsey concluded, “Clearly, this is urgent. I’m glad you were able to do a report that we asked for, but I remain extremely concerned.”

Petersen’s Presentation Focused Largely on Need for Deadline Extension

At the end of the meeting, Petersen appeared before commissioners, ostensibly to update them on the status of the CDBG projects. She did produce a series of one-page information sheets that show a timeline for each CDBG-DR project.

However, she did not go into details on those. Nor did she explain any “unforced errors” as Hidalgo called them.

Instead, she focused largely on how frequently she had requested deadline extensions. In her half hour at the podium, Petersen mentioned a need for deadline extensions or more time approximately 30 times.

I felt she was claiming that there was never enough time to do these jobs. What do you feel? Here are:

Posted by Bob Rehak on 5/15/26

3181 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.

Still Time to Sign Petition Against Upstream Floodplain Development

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.

https://reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Scarborough-20260502.mov

Also see FEMA’s pre-Atlas-14 flood map below.

Scarborough
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.

From HarrisCountyFWS.org at 8AM on 5/2/26

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.

How U.S. Prioritizes Flood Mitigation Over Flood Prevention

4/4/26 – States, counties and communities across the U.S. prioritize flood mitigation over flood prevention, despite FEMA studies that have found prevention costs up to 5-6X less than correction. What types of costs?

Examples of Mitigation Costs

Examples of mitigation costs include:

  • Post-flood buyouts: Government often buys and demolishes homes after repeated flooding.
  • Levees/dams/detention basins/channel improvements: Expensive to build and maintain — and they can fail.
  • Flood insurance subsidies: Taxpayers often foot the bill via programs like the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is deeply in debt.

Examples of Prevention Costs/Strategies

Examples of much more cost-effective Prevention Strategies include:

  • Zoning restrictions to keep development out of high-risk zones.
  • Green infrastructure like wetlands that absorb floodwaters.
  • Elevated buildings or flood-resistant designs where development is unavoidable.
  • Parks, buying out land, and conservation easements before development occurs.
Kingwood’s East End Park provides habitat and recreation while improving the value of neighboring homes and distancing them from flooding.

While development in floodplains may seem cheaper at first, the long-term economic, environmental, and social costs almost always outweigh the initial savings.

National Subsidies Distort Local Priorities

So, why do the inverted priorities persist? The developer reaps the profit, but taxpayers bear the costs. Economists call it an “externality problem” when the production or consumption of a good, such as housing, imposes unintended costs or benefits on third parties not involved in the transaction.

In this case, the availability of cheap, nationally subsidized flood insurance distorted the market for floodplain properties by insulating buyers and lenders from the true costs of flooding.

And when flooding did happen, FEMA and HUD were there to help bail out local communities with hundreds of billions of dollars of flood mitigation grants.

As a result…

The U.S. chronically underinvests in mitigation and over-relies on post-disaster funding.

We see this economic and policy pattern across the U.S. and locally.

Scarborough Example

For instance, in the Lake Houston Area, residents are fighting a 5,300+ acre development upstream from the I-69 bridge where the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, Cypress Creek and Turkey Creek all converge. It is one of the most flood-prone parcels in south Texas and large parts of it have just been reclassified as “floodway.”

Unbelievably, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) is helping bankroll the development. The GLO is also responsible for distributing billions of dollars of federal flood-mitigation aid in Texas. (Somebody needs to write President Trump!)

For More Information

To learn more about the cost of prevention versus correction, see:

For more on other causes of flooding, see the Lessons page of ReduceFlooding.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 4/4/26

3140 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.

Update on Two Kingwood Flood-Mitigation Projects

1/28/26 – People living near the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and the Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully area have been asking what happened to their flood-mitigation projects. Good news: Both are moving forward. Here’s some historical context, where the projects currently stand, and what comes next.

Kingwood Diversion Ditch

The Kingwood Diversion Ditch splits off Bens Branch between Northpark Drive and the new St. Martha Catholic Church. It runs down the western side of North and South Woodland Hills past the fire station on Kingwood Drive. Then it continues south past Trailwood, Deer Ridge Park and finally joins the San Jacinto West Fork at River Grove Park. Along the way, it goes under four bridges.

Neel-Schaffer completed a preliminary engineering study in early 2025. The company recommended widening the Diversion Ditch and building a new outfall to West Fork west of River Grove Park. They projected the cost to be almost $41 million, but it would reduce the floodplain size by 177 acres and remove 34 structures from the floodplain.

Diversion Ditch shown in white, proposed new outfall in green, and Bens Branch in red.

The improvements would divert enough stormwater from Bens Branch to take it from a 2-year level of service to a 100-year level. That’s good news for the merchants in Kingwood Town Center. They all flooded during Harvey and 12 seniors died at Kingwood Village Estates.

The project almost died last year when Democratic County Commissioners voted to redeploy all remaining flood bond funds to the highest scoring projects on their equity prioritization framework. However, they later reconsidered that motion. The Diversion Ditch already had federal partnership funds allocated to it thanks to the work of Congressman Dan Crenshaw. His earmark for the Walnut Lane Bridge saved it from the chopping block.

Now the project is moving again. In late 2025, Harris County awarded a contract to Halff Associates, Inc. for the final engineering and design of the project.

In its January 22 board meeting, the Texas Water Development Board authorized an agreement with Harris County Flood Control District for a $5 million grant that State Representative Charles Cunningham obtained during the 89th Legislative Regular Session. (See item 12.)

HCFCD spokesperson Emily Woodell said the District expects the design work to start by March 1. She also says that additional funding will come from EPA grants to cover design and the 2018 bond to cover construction. Woodell expects construction to begin in late 2027.

Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully

The Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis ranked the Diversion Ditch and the Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully Project as the two most important projects in Kingwood because they help the largest numbers of people.

The 270-acre Woodridge Village Project is the aborted Perry Homes development purchased by Harris County and the City of Houston in 2020. It lies north of Sherwood Trails and Elm Grove in Montgomery County. Except for a few acres on the extreme western end, virtually all of it drains into Taylor Gully.

Perry’s contractors clearcut the Woodridge site starting in 2017 and sloped it toward Taylor Gully. Then before they installed detention ponds and drainage systems, runoff from the site flooded up to 600 homes twice in 2019. Residents had not even finished repairing their homes from the first flood in May, when they flooded again in September. A massive class action lawsuit resulted in a substantial settlement for the victims.

Taylor Gully Flooding May 7 2019
Taylor Gully flooding near Rustling Elms on May 7, 2019.

Before purchasing Woodridge Village from Perry, HCFCD stipulated that they had to finish building all of the stormwater detention basins planned as part of the buildout. However, those detention basins only brought the property up to pre-Atlas 14 standards. They fell 40% short of Atlas 14 requirements.

Shortly after the purchase, HCFCD started building an additional detention basin to bring the total detention capacity onsite up to and beyond Atlas-14 requirements. Sprint Sand and Clay began the work under an excavation and removal (E&R) contract. E&R contracts give HCFCD a head start on production. They let contractors begin removing dirt for a nominal fee and then sell it on the open market to make up their profit margin.

Woodridge
Woodridge Village on May 31 2025. The beginning of a new detention basin was never completed or connected.

However, when HCFCD applied for a HUD CDBG-MIT grant through the Texas General Land Office, HCFCD was forced to pause the project. That’s because projects cannot change while the GLO and HUD consider a grant request.

Scope of project outlined in preliminary engineering review. Compartment 1 is in current bid and will take project up to and slightly beyond Atlas 14 requirements. Compartment 2 will be treated as a separate project in the future if/when needed.

HCFCD applied for grants to:

  • Expand a portion of Taylor Gully and line it with concrete.
  • Build another stormwater detention basin on Woodridge Village holding 412 acre-feet.
  • Replace the culverts at Rustling Elms with a clear-span bridge.

Fast forward: GLO and HUD approved grants for $42 million in October, 2025. HCFCD put the project out for bids. And proposals are due by Feb. 16, 2026. See screen capture from County purchasing below.

Screen capture supplied by Precinct 3 Engineer Eric Heppen

Even though the bid above is listed as “channel conveyance improvements,” according to Woodell, it also includes the Woodridge Village Stormwater Detention Basin(s). “Since Woodridge mitigates Taylor Gully, those two projects have been combined forever after,” she said.

The HUD/GLO deadline for finishing the project is March 31, 2028. That’s do-able if everyone hustles.

Additional funding for this project came from U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw. He secured federal funding for Taylor Gully improvements in March 2022. And Representative Charles Cunningham helped secure state funding through the TWDB.

Press conference on status of Lake Houston Area flood-mitigation projects.
At a September 2024 press conference where Woodridge meets Taylor Gully. Left to Right, Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE, US Rep. Dan Crenshaw, HCFCD Exec. Dir. Dr. Tina Petersen, Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger and State Rep. Charles Cunningham.

More news to follow when we see the bids.

Posted by Bob Rehak on January 28, 2026

3074 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Ramsey Sounds Alarm Over Deadline That Could Cost County $250 Million

1/9/2026 – On 1/8/2026, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey put Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) on notice that he is concerned about HCFCD’s ability to meet state and federal grant deadlines for an estimated quarter billion dollars of flood control projects. Missing the deadlines could possibly result in the loss of funding.

Ramsey cautioned the court, “If we don’t meet the deadline, $250 million is at risk.” 

Ramsey said he plans to discuss the progress of the projects in every Commissioners Court meeting between now and the February 28, 2027, deadline.

The projects are being funded by Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Relief (CDBG-DR). The grants originate from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), but are administered by the Texas General Land Office. Project deadlines have already been extended twice and HCFCD has been warned in writing not to ask for more extensions.

The eleven CDBG-DR projects include:

Status from HCFCD as of 1/9/26. Estimated grant values from GLO as of 10/25. SWDB means stormwater detention basin. CCI means channel conveyance improvements, i.e., widening, deepening and/or lining with concrete.

Ramsey’s estimate of $250 million at risk differs from the total grant value of $322 million. He must conservatively assume that at least some of the projects can be completed and are therefore not at risk. However, he didn’t say which he thought were safe.

Typical Timetables

It typically takes 3-4 months to advertise a project for bids, approve the winning bidder, and sign the contract. Once the contractor mobilizes for the job, it can easily take another year or more to complete it. For example, the Mercer Basin on Cypress Creek was started in 2022 on an expedited basis. It was expected to take a year. But it was not yet complete at the end of 2025. So you can see Ramsey’s concern.

In contrast, most of these projects will have less than a year for construction unless HUD grants another extension. In the past, Commissioners have expressed reservations about starting projects they may not have money to complete.

Flood Control’s Reaction to Concerns

Regardless, Flood Control District Executive Director Tina Petersen expressed confidence that she could make the February 2027 deadline.

She thanked Commissioner Adrian Garcia for the recognition that HCFCD is getting seven projects amended into the GLO’s Action Plan. But those are CDBG-Mitigation projects, not CDBG-Disaster Relief projects, which have a much tighter deadline.

Without distinguishing the difference, she then segued to Disaster Relief. She thanked Garcia again for recognizing that the Brookglen bid had just been approved. Brookglen IS a DR project.

She then addressed Ramsey’s concern. “We do have a plan for moving forward with the remainder of the projects,” said Petersen without offering specifics. “Right now, we have four projects out for bid that were originally supposed to be going out this month, but we were successful in expediting the schedule and pushing fast and pushing hard with the cooperation of our purchasing director to get those out in December.”

Petersen continued, “So, we are moving ahead of schedule right now. We have an additional, I believe, five projects left to get out in Quarter One. And right now, we are on track to do so.”

Dr. Tina Petersen, Executive Director of HCFCD, addressing Commissioners Court on deadline issue.

Petersen Points to Process Improvements

Petersen then shifted the discussion to process improvements. “We are working closely to identify places where we’re having challenges and then working collaboratively to make sure that we chase those issues down.” 

She specifically mentioned how she was working with the county’s purchasing department to speed up the bidding and approval process and pointed to Item 132 on the agenda. It gives authority to the purchasing agent to award construction contracts to the lowest responsible bidder for 29 CDBG-DR and -MIT projects.

“Every day, every week that we can save in this process makes a difference,” said Petersen. “We think that … will save us between 2 and 6 weeks, and that will matter to us.” 

“Every Single Day Could Make a Difference”

Garcia put a finer point on it. He said, “Every single day could make a difference.”

Precinct 4 Commissioner Lesley Briones thanked Petersen for her efforts, but also said, “Every time I see you, Doctor Petersen, I feel like there’s a clock ticking in my head.”

This is the best drama in town.

During the meeting yesterday, it became clear that Ramsey was frustrated with the operation and efficiency of many county departments. He wants no more excuses or finger pointing. And he’s doing whatever he can to keep the county from losing that CDBG-DR money.

In a separate phone call Ramsey said, “Don’t tell me what you’re going to do. Tell me what you’ve done. Bid the jobs!”

HCFCD started working on these projects in 2022. But only one is now under construction. With only 13 months left to move millions of cubic yards of dirt, Petersen claims HCFCD is “ahead of schedule,” Incredibly, 9 of 11 projects have still not been awarded to contractors.

To see video of this discussion in Commissioners Court, go to https://harriscountytx.new.swagit.com/videos/371451. Then click on Emergency Supplemental Items, Part 2 of 2 and scroll to 1:44:30 for the start of the discussion.

Part of a Broader Slowdown

The Flood Control District listed only thirteen items on its part of the agenda for the January 8 meeting.

  • Three had to do with interlocal agreements
  • Three dealt with CenterPoint agreements
  • Two dealt with contract modifications
  • Three dealt with buyouts of individual properties
  • One had to do with safety
  • One delegated authority to Harris County Purchasing to award construction contracts to the lowest responsible bidder for 29 CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT projects (Item 132 mentioned above).

After passage of the flood bond in 2018, HCFCD routinely had 80+ items on the agenda. But then in 2021, the Democratic majority on Commissioners Court made a management change. And the rate of project execution has slowed ever since.

From https://www.hcfcd.org/Activity. Data goes through end of 2025. Current rate is less than half of peak.

Now is the time for Dr. Petersen to show that she’s worth her $434,000 annual salary. Can she save a quarter billion dollars? Only time will tell. Now comes the real heavy lifting.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/9/26

3055 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.

GLO Transparency Claim Leaves Supporters Scratching Heads

1/6/2026 – The Texas General Land Office (GLO) which manages more than $14 billion of flood mitigation funds has invested in the development of flood-prone land. But it won’t explain why, even as the agency proclaims “transparency above everything.”

Partnership with Developer of Flood-Prone Land

Since 2020, I have posted more than 40 articles about the 5,000+ flood-prone acres west of Kingwood, virtually all of it in the floodways and floodplains of Spring and Cypress Creeks where they join the San Jacinto West Fork. For many years, the property was owned by a Syrian developer called Ryko and its sister company, Pacific Indio Properties. They wanted to build 7,000 homes on it.

However, they ran into repeated physical and political development challenges having to do with floodplains, floodways, streams, wetlands, emergency access and more. On August 18, 2025, they quietly sold the property to a Dallas-based developer named Scarborough and one of its sister companies, San Jacinto Preserve, LP.

What wasn’t clear at the time was that the Texas General Land Office (GLO) and a state board it oversees, the School Land Board (SLB), partnered with the buyers to purchase the flood-prone land and develop it. That’s significant because the GLO also administers more than $14 billion of flood-mitigation funds for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – an apparent conflict of interest.

As word leaked out, the GLO stonewalled public-information requests. They appealed Freedom of Information Act requests to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office. Paxton’s office upheld the GLO’s right to conceal the nature and extent of the GLO/SLB involvement.

I could find no mention of the State Land Board partnership with Scarborough in meeting minutes or agendas posted online. However, I did find one reference in an unaudited financial report. It said…

“Scarborough Lane Development and the School Land Board entered into a partnership in August 2025 for the development of a master planned community. The partnership acquired approximately 5,317 acres in Montgomery County.”

Page 71 of unaudited GLO Financial Annual Report dated August 31, 2025, two weeks after the purchase.

That’s it…32 words about an investment reportedly totaling close to $140 million.

So, I started digging. I wanted to know how the GLO reconciled the apparent conflict between:

  • Managing more than $14 billion of federal and state flood-mitigation dollars
  • Investing in the development of flood-prone properties.

But the deeper I dug, the deeper the GLO seemed to dig in.

Initial Response

On 12/19/25, the GLO issued this statement.

“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, MD

However, I learned via FOIA requests to Montgomery County that the county did NOT actually approve a full drainage study in July 2025. The county engineer’s letter listed three pages of things Ryko would have to do to get approval. At the time, the new owners were relying on a preliminary drainage study provided by the previous owners.

It had gaps, to say the least. Either no one at the SLB read the letter or they didn’t know I had it. So, I sent them the letter and asked how they could call that “successfully completed.” They never directly answered that concern.

Nor did they explain why they invested in the project! When I asked…

Second Response

On 12/30/25, I received a second statement from the GLO. It read:

“Recognizing how important Montgomery County is to Texas, the School Land Board (SLB) wanted to bring economic development and opportunity to the area with this project. The board was confident we could mitigate flooding risks. However, we have heard and want to be sensitive to the public’s concern over flooding. At this time, we have decided not to move forward with the development as planned.” — Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, MD 

So…we went from “successfully completed” a drainage study (past tense) to “confident we COULD mitigate flooding risks” (future conditional tense).

But there’s another problem. The response seemed to conclude on a positive note. “We have decided not to move forward with the development…” Then I noticed “as planned.”

So, I asked what Buckingham meant by “as planned.” I specifically asked whether the GLO was pulling out of the development or modifying it to find a compromise between economic development and flood mitigation. So I asked.

Third Response

The GLO press office next emailed a statement on 1/5/26. Their legal counsel said this:

“As a limited partner, the GLO cannot halt this project altogether. The agency is in discussions with our partners to evaluate all available future options for this tract to address the raised concerns.” – Nameless GLO lawyer

Three problems:

  • Note the “S” on partner, making it plural. From this, I deduce that the GLO is now discussing options with Scarborough and at least one other partner. Who? Montgomery County? HUD? The Texas Water Development Board? Texas Parks & Wildlife? Someone else?
  • Whose concerns? The unnamed partners’ concerns? Or the public’s?
  • It’s unclear what kind of options are on the table.

However, it is clear the project has not been cancelled yet as the previous statement implied.

Transparency Issue

At this point, we know that a state agency charged with administering billions of dollars in flood mitigation funds has helped purchase flood-prone land for the purposes of development.

But, there’s a huge transparency issue. We still don’t know:

  • Whose money they used to help purchase the land
  • How much they invested
  • Why
  • What commitments the GLO made
  • What the plans are
  • What happens to the investment if the project fails?

Yet the GLO’s website proudly proclaims “transparency above everything”.

Ignoring issues like these undermines trust in government. If this is such a good deal, why isn’t Commissioner Dawn Buckingham holding a press conference about it?

Why the Fuss?

I talked to one retired, highly respected developer who looked at this land decades ago. He said “development just doesn’t make economic sense.” The area is one of the most flood-prone in the region.

Ryko and its sister company, Pacific Indio Properties, tried to develop the property below for years without luck.

Ryko drainage impact study illustration showing outline and floodplains.
Within the red outline, only dark gray areas are elevated above floodplains. But blue and lighter gray areas are in floodplains or floodways.

Those floodplains and floodways will expand significantly – likely by 50% to100% – when FEMA adopts new maps based on Atlas-14 data. See FEMA’s old map below.

From FEMA’s Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Map dated 2014. Scarborough land in center. Brown = 500-year floodplain, Aqua = 100-year, Cross-hatched = Floodway.

In addition to floodplain and floodway issues, the property has wetland issues.

From the National Wetlands Inventory. Note solid green areas – the wetlands – as well as numerous ponds and streams within the property. All raise development uncertainty and costs.

“Like Aiming a Firehose at Kingwood and Humble”

One of the most respected hydrologists in the region said that “if this property ever got developed, it would be like aiming a firehose at Kingwood and Humble.”

You would think that would be a concern for an area where floodwaters rose 27 feet and killed 15 people. But unlike officials in neighboring areas, the GLO has never publicly discouraged development of this land. Instead, they’re investing in the development of it!

Concerns Expressed by Neighboring Officials

In addition to the physical challenges, Scarborough and the GLO face many political challenges.

  • The Houston Planning Commission has not approved the developer’s general plan or plats.
  • Harris County unanimously approved a resolution urging Montgomery County to apply stricter Harris County floodplain standards to the development.
  • Houston City Council unanimously approved a strongly worded resolution OPPOSING the Scarborough Development.
  • Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler took an extension of Townsen Blvd off the 2025 Montgomery County Road Bond to make development more difficult.
  • The Montgomery County Engineer is demanding an alternative evacuation route.
  • Harris County will not permit a bridge across Spring Creek that the developer needs as an alternative evacuation route.

Even people who normally support Commissioner Dawn Buckingham are scratching their heads over this deal and the GLO’s concealment of information that should be public.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/6/2026

3052 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.

Top Flood-Related Stories of 2025: Part II – Regs and Funding

12/28/2025 – This is the second part of a three part series on the top flood-related stories of 2025. Part I covered the major disasters of the year. Part II will cover the government response in terms of regulations and funding for flood mitigation efforts. And Part III will cover the progress of mitigation.

Government Response to Camp Mystic/Guadalupe Tragedy

Hearings on the Camp Mystic disaster last July identified a failure of warning signs (weather reports, alarm systems, etc.) as one of the primary causes. Investigations also discovered that the camp’s operators lobbied for changes to flood maps so that they could build in floodplains. And then they evidently expanded the camp before regulators became aware. Finally, evacuation plans were evidently not well communicated or understood.

In response, the Texas Legislature passed the Heaven’s 27 Camp Safety Act (a reference to the number of young girls who died at Camp Mystic). The act bars camp cabins in high risk areas. It also requires camps to have state-approved emergency plans, regular evacuation drills and disaster alert systems.

Lawmakers approved nearly $300 million “to boost flood preparedness, including $200 million to match federal disaster aid, $50 million for local grants to purchase flood warning equipment and $28 million to improve weather forecasting.” A companion bill also expanded government oversight of youth camps.

FEMA Cancels BRIC Program

In April, FEMA announced that it is ending the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and canceling all BRIC applications from Fiscal Years 2020-2023.

It also canceled the fiscal year 2024 notice of funding opportunity (NOFO), involving $750 million for grants. 

BRIC was FEMA’s largest pre-disaster mitigation program. Congress established it through the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018. Its purpose: to fundamentally shift federal-disaster spending from post-disaster recovery to pre-disaster risk reduction. In other words, to encourage a shift from “Repair” to “Resilience.”

BRIC aimed to prevent disasters by helping communities build to higher standards. Flood-risk reduction grants typically helped finance projects such as:

  • Regional detention and retention basins
  • Flood diversion channels
  • Levee and floodwall construction or upgrades
  • Drainage improvements exceeding minimum code standards
  • Nature-based solutions (wetlands, floodplain restoration)
  • Elevation or floodproofing of critical facilities (hospitals, EOCs, fire stations)

A press release that accompanied the cancellation of the BRIC program called it a “wasteful, politicized grant program.” However, investments in hazard mitigation programs are the opposite of “wasteful,” according to the Association of State Flood Plain Managers. They point to studies showing flood-hazard mitigation investments return up to $8 in benefits for every $1 spent. 

States sued to prevent the cancellation. The lawsuits are still locked up in courts.

Prevention is always cheaper than correction. After Harvey, a Harris County engineering study found 20 times less damage in subdivisions using newer, more stringent building codes compared to those built under older codes.

FEMA Slowdown

Meanwhile, approvals for other types of FEMA grants have slowed. According to The Hill, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noem has adopted a policy of personally approving all major expenditures that cost $100,000 or more. The Hill article reported $900 million in grants and loans reportedly awaiting Noem’s review.

Separately, in other FEMA news, according to the Washington Post, hundreds of residents signed up for FEMA buyouts after Cat 4 Hurricane Helene devastated the southeast in 2024. Not one has yet been approved. 

HUD/GLO Finish Rebuilding Program

On a more positive note, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) administers U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) flood-mitigation/disaster-relief programs in Texas. The GLO recently announced completion of the rebuilding of more than 9600 homes across the state under its Homeowner Assistance Program (HAP). That total includes mostly homes from its Hurricane Harvey disaster recovery mission. But it also includes homes impacted by Imelda, Laura, and repetitive flooding events in the Rio Grande Valley.

GLO poster celebrating program completion.

Status of Other GLO/HUD Programs

The GLO continued advancing long-term recovery and resilience by administering more than $1 billion in Community Development Block Grant for Disaster Recovery and Mitigation Projects. Additionally, HUD approved the GLO’s plan for $555 million to help communities impacted by 2024 Disasters.

The GLO completed reviews and approvals of all remaining project applications under the Regional Mitigation Program (RMP), providing funding for critical infrastructure improvements including drainage systems and flood-prevention measures. In total, the GLO has approved more than 200 RMP projects for more than $1.1 billion.

The GLO also approved more than $135 million in applications through the Disaster Recovery Reallocation Program (DRRP). It utilizes unspent disaster recovery funds from older disasters to help communities with outstanding unmet needs. These investments will reduce risk related to hurricanes, tropical storms, flooding, and other hazards.  

The agency also announced it will be closing applications at the end of the year for both the Local Hazard Mitigation Plans Program (LHMPP) and the Resilient Communities Program (RCP). Both are part of the GLO’s long-term strategy to help communities strengthen local planning efforts, modernize codes, and protect life and property from future disasters.

Montgomery County Updates Flood Regulations

Eight years after Harvey, Montgomery County finally adopted new subdivision, floodplain, and drainage regulations.

The county adopted its new subdivision (development) regulations on March 4, then amended them on May 27 and October 14. MoCo also issued subdivision guidelines and recommendations on November 4.

Commissioners adopted a new Drainage Criteria Manual on August 26. And new Floodplain Management Regulations became effective on October 1, 2025.

While MoCo regs don’t perfectly reflect the Minimum Drainage Standards recommended by Harris County for other counties draining into it, they are a great improvement.

Competing Forces at Work

Flood safety is a constant struggle between competing forces that increase or reduce flood risk. There are so many, the public can hardly know whether it’s winning or losing.

Just because the government appropriates money, doesn’t mean it’s enough or will be spent promptly.

Even if it is, will it actually reduce risk in the face of offsetting factors such as legislative loopholes, grandfather clauses, willful blindness, the profit motive, shifting political winds, and insufficiently mitigated upstream development?

And maybe that’s THE Top Flood-Related Story of 2025. More on that tomorrow.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/28/2025

3043 Days since Hurricane Harvey

State Agency Responsible for Flood Mitigation Invests in Flood-Prone 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:

  • To mitigate flooding
  • To help fund public schools.

The GLO home page trumpets how it manages $14.3 billion in disaster recovery and flood mitigation funds.

Simultaneously, the GLO’s website stresses how it manages $60 billion dollars in public school funds. But the investment funds strategic plan makes no mention of flooding. It does, however, say they seek “exceptional returns.” Developments in floodplains can provide those.

I gave multiple people in the GLO Press Office a chance to comment on this post before I published it. Not one replied.

Amount at Stake Could Be as High as $140 Million

A company called Ryko sold the 5,000+ acres in question to Scarborough Houston/San Jacinto Preserve earlier this year.

State Representative Steve Toth claimed in a press release on December 11, 2025, that he was working to revoke the state’s “$140 million investment” in the project by the GLO’s School Land Board.

However, Ryan Burkhardt, the president of Scarborough, told ReduceFlooding that Scarborough itself had close to $140 million invested in the project. He admitted the state was his partner, but refused to say how much the state invested.

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:

  1. Invest capital in flood-prone land at a discount
  2. Benefit from development-driven appreciation
  3. 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.

Sadly, in this case, that includes property in floodplains undervalued upfront because of flood risk.

Where This Leaves the Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve Issue

The school-fund investment side of the GLO may not even understand the flood risk or recognize the political sensitivity. It likely focuses only on evaluating the land primarily as an undervalued trust asset.

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.

According to the Texas Water Development Board’s most recent state flood plan, the number of Texans living in floodplains exceeds the population of 30 states. This investment illustrates one of the reasons.

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.

At this point, Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler, Harris County, State Representative Steve Toth, and City of Houston have all come out against this project because of the flood risk. But I have seen no official announcements from the Governor’s Office or the GLO about cancelling their support.

In my opinion, the only good investment in this land would be to turn it into a state park.

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.

GLO Approves $42 Million for Taylor Gully-Woodridge Project in Kingwood

10/6/25 – Today, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) approved approximately $42 million to construct Taylor Gully Channel Conveyance Improvements and a Woodridge Stormwater Detention Basin in Kingwood.

Compartment 1 was started but paused during the application process, per HUD rules.
Woodridge
Woodridge Village Basin 1 as of May 31 2025.

Other Projects Approved on 10/6/25

GLO also approved six other HCFCD projects today. See below.

HUD CDBG-MIT Projects approved on 10/6/25

All seven projects are part of a larger group of 34 HCFCD projects in various stages of funding approval by the GLO for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The seven approved today were all Community Development Block Grant Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) projects. Another category of HUD CDBG projects is Disaster Relief (abbreviated DR).

The practical difference between the two categories primarily has to do with their deadlines. DR projects face February 28, 2027 deadlines. And MIT projects have a little longer – until March 31, 2028.

That’s even more good news for the people who live near Woodridge and Taylor Gully. Some doubt whether HCFCD can complete the DR projects before their deadlines.

Welcome News for Residents Near Taylor Gully

Today’s approval will come as welcome news for those who live in Kingwood’s Elm Grove, Mills Branch, Woodstream and Sherwood Trail Villages.

Due to clearcutting and grading of the Woodridge property starting in 2017, up to 600 homes flooded twice in 2019 downstream, mostly along Taylor Gully.

Subsequently, Perry Homes built several detention basins on the Woodridge property before selling it to HCFCD and the City of Houston. Perry’s basins met pre-Atlas 14 standards. The new basin will bring detention up to and possibly beyond Atlas-14 requirements. Atlas-14 is the new set of rainfall probability statistics adopted after Hurricane Harvey.

The Woodridge portion of the project includes 421.6 acre feet of additional stormwater detention capacity (Compartment 1 in diagram above).

Other planned improvements along Taylor Gully include:

  • 13,118 feet of channel conveyance improvements
  • Placing a concrete channel along the base of it
  • Replacing the concrete culverts at Rustling Elms with an open span bridge
Rustic Elms Bridge on Taylor Gully
Current bridge over Rustling Elms would be replaced with a clear span bridge like the one downstream.
Taylor Gully rustling elms bridge
Rustling Elms Bridge over Taylor Gully before peak of May 7, 2019 flood.

Together, the channel and stormwater-retention improvements should reduce the water-surface elevation in a 100-year flood by up to five feet.

In the future, HCFCD will still have enough land to build an additional detention basin (Compartment 2) should it become necessary.

As of today, HCFCD expects to bid the project sometime in the first quarter of 2026.

For More Information

See this PowerPoint on the HCFCD website for more information about the Taylor Gully/Woodridge project.

For more information about the other projects, see this PDF from the GLO. GLO has not yet updated this PDF with today’s approvals. However, it does contain specific information about the projects, their size, scope, cost and approval stages that some may find useful.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/6/2025

2960 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.