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
4/4/26 – 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SJR_704_048-e1612057029212.jpg?fit=1200%2C811&ssl=18111200adminadmin2026-04-04 17:34:192026-04-04 17:41:52How U.S. Prioritizes Flood Mitigation Over Flood Prevention
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 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 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.
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.
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
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Kingwood-Flood-Mit.jpg?fit=1100%2C670&ssl=16701100adminadmin2026-01-28 14:44:172026-01-28 17:05:33Update on Two Kingwood Flood-Mitigation Projects
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.
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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/HC-DR-Project-Timetable-as-of-1.8.26-e1768001641101.png?fit=1100%2C596&ssl=15961100adminadmin2026-01-09 17:39:562026-01-09 19:54:54Ramsey Sounds Alarm Over Deadline That Could Cost County $250 Million
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.
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.” – NamelessGLO 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/20230716-Screenshot-2023-07-16-at-10.29.06-AM.jpg?fit=1100%2C579&ssl=15791100adminadmin2025-12-28 20:24:522026-01-03 14:59:08Top Flood-Related Stories of 2025: Part II – Regs and Funding
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
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.
GLO also approved six other HCFCD projects today. See below.
HUD CDBG-MITProjects 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 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
Current bridge over Rustling Elms would be replaced with a clear span bridge like the one downstream.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 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.
https://i0.wp.com/reduceflooding.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Taylor-Gully-at-Peak-e1728600738227.jpg?fit=1100%2C327&ssl=13271100adminadmin2025-10-06 19:33:272025-10-07 10:12:37GLO Approves $42 Million for Taylor Gully-Woodridge Project in Kingwood
9/16/2025 – Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) could soon be caught in a time squeeze.
Deadlines are fast approaching on hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) via the Texas General Land Office (GLO). Yet HCFCD is pushing projected start dates for those projects further into the future. So, there may not be enough time to complete the jobs.
“As a rule of thumb, it typically takes two years to build a detention basin. But HCFCD has left itself with only approximately a year to build many with urgent deadlines.”
Construction Expert
And further deadline extensions likely will not be granted. When HUD granted HCFCD an extension on 10 of the 29 projects, HUD’s letter said, in essence, not to bother asking for another extension. A GLO spokesperson said, “The GLO doesn’t have the statutory authority to override HUD.”
Status of Grants and Deadlines
Yesterday, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) released the status of the 29 grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. They currently total $862.6 million.
The 29 grants fall into two categories: Disaster Relief (DR) and Mitigation (MIT).
HCFCD has an immovable deadline of February 28, 2027 for all Disaster Relief grants. That’s just 17 months away. And 9 out of the 10 that have not yet started won’t even go out for bids until next year. And one of those will be bid in the third quarter of next year, likely leaving only a few months to complete the $9 million project.
Let’s discuss the DR projects first. See the first group below.
Of the 11 projects in the Disaster Relief group, ten have already been approved and amended into the County’s contract. But only one has started construction. All the others haven’t even been bid yet. And won’t be for months.
Seven of Ten Remaining DR Projects Show Slippage in Bid Schedules
HCFCD periodically publishes “bid outlooks.” They tell potential contractors when HCFCD intends to advertise projects for bidding.
Comparing the June and August project bidding schedules shows that…
Seven of the remaining 10 have slipped three to nine months … in two months.
See table below.
Dates compiled from HCFCD Bid Outlooks for June and August (published in September).
How do you get this far and not have projects ready to bid immediately after approval? An HCFCD spokesperson said, “It’s quite a layered process” with approvals from other authorities, too, i.e., for environmental studies.
Regardless, only 17 months remain before an already extended deadline.
According to a GLO spokesperson, when HUD granted the deadline extension, the letter granting the extension basically said, “Don’t ask for another.” The GLO spokesperson also confirmed that GLO did not have statutory authority to grant an extension against HUD’s ruling.
So is there time to complete the Disaster Relief projects?
Arbor Oaks Project Illustrates Difficulty of Deadline
Only 17 months remain to bid and build 10 DR projects. And it typically takes 3 to 6 months just to:
Advertise a project for bids
Secure and review the bids
Get commissioners court to approve the bids
Finalize the contract
Issue a “notice to proceed”
Mobilize crews
That leaves roughly a year to build the projects. But the ten listed above could have even less time because of slippage in the bidding schedules.
Only one CDBG-DR job has started construction already: the Arbor Oaks Stormwater Detention Basin in White Oak Bayou’s watershed.
Commissioners Court approved the job for bidding on 5/8/2025.
HCFCD awarded the contract on 6/26/2025.
As of yesterday afternoon, the contractor was still mulching trees – more than 4 months after the job was first advertised.
No dirt has been removed yet. The pictures below show how the project looked on 9/16/2025.
Former Arbor Oaks subdivision near White Oak BayouExtent of clearing on 9/16/2025. Concrete removal was supposed to start yesterday, but did not by 2PM.The only activity on the site was tree clearing/mulching.
The diagram below shows what contractors still must build.
Two dry-bottom and two wet-bottom basinswill provide 221 acre-feet of stormwater storage.That’s a lot of dirt to move!
If HCFCD misses that February 28, 2027 deadline, the county could be on the hook for up to $34.2 million in HUD funds. And because that project got the earliest start, it has the highest likelihood of beating the deadline. What about other projects that won’t even be bid until there’s less than a year to bid and build them?
Because the DR projects have the most immediate deadlines, everyone has been focusing on those first. But the second group of 18 MIT projects also have deadlines.
All MIT funding allocated to the State of Texas after Hurricane must be turned into HUD by January 1, 2033. But the GLO needs 18 months to complete paperwork and package documentation for thousands of projects for HUD’s audit. So, the deadline for sub-recipients, such as HCFCD is July 1, 2031.
But there’s another wrinkle that puts even more pressure on sub-recipients to start projects soon. HUD wants the State to spend half the funds by January 1, 2027 – two months BEFORE the DR deadline.
How Real are the Deadlines?
There seem to be two different views of deadlines.
HCFCD’s current management, like a former Mayor of Houston, appears to believe that deadlines can be indefinitely extended.
The GLO views them as a contractual obligation, which if violated, could result in the taxpayers of Texas footing the bill for unnecessary delays.
According to the GLO, HUD changed its way of doing business after previous disasters such as Hurricane Ike, when some funds sat unused for years. So, after Harvey, HUD adopted, in essence, a “use it or lose it” policy with strict deadlines. Not everyone has gotten that message yet.
The potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars for flood mitigation could make voters very unhappy.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 9/18/2025
2941 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/2025/09/Bid-Slippage-Sept-2025.png?fit=2392%2C880&ssl=18802392adminadmin2025-09-17 14:09:152025-09-17 15:27:14With Grant Deadlines Approaching, Bid Deadlines Are Slipping
8/8/25 – The Mercer Stormwater Detention Basin at FM1960 and the Hardy Tollroad along Cypress Creek illustrates the difficulty HCFCD will face as it attempts to build 11 comparable basins in the next year and a half.
The Mercer Basin, originally projected to take one year – on an expedited schedule – has taken more than two years already and is still many more months from completion.
If HCFCD maintains that pace for the other basins, it could miss a critical U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development deadline.
One (Arbor Oaks) is already in construction. But ten more projects valued at $289 million remain to be bid. Is there enough time to complete them before HUD’s immovable February 28, 2027, deadline?
The next ten basins don’t have 2.5 years. So unless HCFCD picks up its pace, low-to-moderate income areas across Harris County could lose a quarter billion dollars in funding. They can’t afford that.
Neither can areas like Lake Houston. Because Commissioners Court will start cancelling projects here to divert funds to the areas that lost grants.
Huge Difference Between Original and Actual Timeline
At 512 acre feet, the Mercer Basin is slightly larger than average. Construction experts tell me that a basin that size should take a year to build. And, in fact, that was the estimate Rodney Ellis gave a community meeting.
But the project slid from the git-go. The county didn’t advertise it to potential bidders until 8/4/23. Then it took HCFCD four months to select a winning bid and issue a “notice to proceed” to the contractor.
Photos Taken 8/8/25 Show Construction Still Far From Complete
And the job, which was supposed to be finished a year ago this week, is still in construction. Worse, construction may not finish this year, according to a contractor I talked to who saw the pictures below.
Looking W at South Mercer detention basin at FM1960 and Hardy. FM1960 on left. Looking S toward FM1960 at same basin. Hardy Tollroad in upper right.Looking N at balancing culvert between two Mercer basinsNorth basin is closer to completion but still not done.It appears contractors are still installing backslope interceptor swales and drain pipes.Looking S at both basins with Cypress Creek snaking through frame from right to left.
Mercer Took 2X Longer than Predicted – So Far
From the invitation to bid to today has been 735 days – five days more than 2 years!
Even if all CDBG-DR projects in play went out for bids tomorrow, only 569 days remain until the ultimate, immovable deadline of Feb. 28, 2027. Even worse…
According to HCFCD’s latest bid schedule, 8 of 10 projects on HUD’s list won’t even go out for bid for another 2 to 10 months.
Mercer should have taken a year to finish from the invitation to bid, but has taken two years and could take another half year.
The other DR projects will have 18 months, but could take another 2 to 10 months before they even start bidding.
You can see the concerns. No margin for error. No weather delays allowed. And HCFCD still might not have enough time to complete projects.
George P. Bush announced this money was coming to Harris County more than four years ago when he was still commissioner of the Texas General Land Office. It took HCFCD (and the Harris County Community Services Department) four years to figure out how they wanted to spend the money he allocated. Now they’re leaving 18 months or less to actually build the projects.
Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/8/2025
2901 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/2025/08/20250808-DJI_20250808115626_0074_D.jpg?fit=1100%2C619&ssl=16191100adminadmin2025-08-08 20:41:442025-08-09 07:09:32Mercer Basin Illustrates Risks of HCFCD Slowdown for Quarter Billion in HUD Funding
