Tag Archive for: Scarborough

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 However, the GLO refused to reveal the amount of the investment (and did not say that the investment had been revoked as Toth’s press release claimed).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.

The Profit in Floodplain Development Explained

12/19/25 – Despite substantial hurdles, floodplain development can be very profitable for patient developers with deep pockets, even if only a small percentage of their land is developed.

For instance, Scarborough Lane Development/San Jacinto Preserve LP has purchased more than 5,000 acres of land in floodplains and floodways near the confluence of four waterways. They include the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, and Turkey Creek.

Floodplains Streams from Ryko Drainage Study
Base map from seller’s preliminary drainage analysis. Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve property outlined in red. Shades of blue represent floodways and floodplains on property.

Buyer Says It Paid $140 Million for Property Appraised at Less Than $1 Million

Scarborough claims it paid close to $140 million for the property – 8X higher than the Montgomery County Appraisal District (MCAD) places the market value of the land and 175X higher than the appraised value. See below.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Scarborough-Appraised-Value-1024x518.png
Source: MCAD-TX.org. Timber exemptions account for low appraised value. Size = acres

Even more stunning, Ryko, the company that sold the property to Scarborough/SJP, produced a preliminary engineering study that suggested only 38% of the land was developable because it has such high flood risk.

So, in what galaxy does this make economic sense?

Actually, it makes perfect sense – if you understand how the game is played.

Spread Makes Bread

Said another way, buy low; sell high.

The exceedingly low appraised value of floodplain land helps developers acquire and hold the land, sometimes for decades – at a very low tax cost while they work out regulatory issues. And when they do, the step change in value is so great, that if only 20% of the land is developable, they likely still make money.

This is according to ChatGPT, which costed out details of several development scenarios for me. One was even profitable with only 10% developable land.

A wide spread between acquisition costs and potential land sales after all permits and mitigation costs are accounted for is one of the main reasons why developers target floodplain land.

The dynamic is well understood in land economics and is particularly visible in fast-growing regions like Montgomery County.

Floodplain land often sells at a steep discount relative to nearby uplands because of:

  • Regulatory limits (floodway vs. floodplain)
  • Engineering costs (fill, detention, bridges)
  • Uncertainty (permitting, litigation, political risk)
  • Time value (increased holding costs because of longer periods before land becomes salable).

With steep, discounted prices in mind, even modest success—e.g., making 20–30% of a tract buildable — can make the entire investment profitable. Anything above that is gravy.

Why Floodplain Land Produces Unusually Large Spreads

Floodplain land tends to be priced as “mostly unusable.” Once permits are secured, the buildable portion prices like normal land. But the remainder can still be monetized as detention, mitigation, or open space.

Better yet for the developer, some of the land designated as green space may even be developed years later as the pain of flooding dims and political winds shift.

This can create huge “step” changes in land value.

Factors that Amplify Spread

In Texas, several factors amplify this spread. Consider, for instance:

Timber Exemptions that Lower Carrying Costs:

Developers pay only a few dollars in taxes per acre per year. On the five parcels above, taxes average $148 per acre per year. That makes patience very cheap. A well capitalized developer can afford to wait years while working out permitting issues.

Timber exemptions also mask speculative intent. On paper, the land looks like a passive forestry holding, not a development play.

Reliance on Post-Development Mitigation at Public Expense:

Some developers shift part of their mitigation costs onto the public. For example, some developers in Montgomery County have avoided building detention basins by using questionable flood routing studies. Even the former Montgomery County engineer criticized the practice. As flood peaks build over time, downstream residents clamor for mitigation. But it comes at public expense. So the developer has effectively externalized some of its costs.

Permissive Local Drainage Rules and Lax Enforcement:

This is especially true in counties that surround fast growing metropolitan areas. Some counties around Houston still use drainage criteria from the 1980s to help attract development.

Sometimes gaps in regulations cause flooding as Elm Grove discovered twice in 2019. Many floodplain developers tend to exploit such gaps in regulations and then claim they are complying with all applicable regulations.

Montgomery County recently upgraded its drainage criteria manual and adopted Atlas 14 rainfall probability standards. But willful blindness among regulators can still create a permissive environment to the detriment of people living downstream.

Risk/Reward Ratio Attracts Only Certain Types of Developers

Floodplain land tends to attract well-capitalized, patient developers with a 10–20 year horizon. For those with deep pockets and powerful partners, economics may work even if 90% of the land never becomes buildable.

This is not accidental; it is a rational, well-understood land-banking strategy.

However, the spread only turns into profit if risk converts to permission. It collapses if floodway limits are strictly enforced, mitigation costs surge, public opposition blocks approvals, or political sentiment hardens after major floods.

In such cases, floodplain land can become a capital trap, not a bargain. But still…

The large spread between low purchase cost and high potential value is a major magnet for developers.

And that’s how the Houston region got 65,000 homes built in floodplains since Hurricane Harvey, as investigative reporter Yilun Cheng discovered for the Houston Chronicle.

Courageous reporting, such as hers, makes flood risk highly visible and politically salient. And that makes the spread harder to monetize. Witness recent resolutions by Harris County Precinct 3 and the City of Houston. It will be interesting to see Scarborough’s next moves.

Next Up

I am working on a series of posts about floodplain development. Next, I’ll examine the seductive promise of green space. Floodplain developers often promote abundant, recreational green space to early buyers in a development.

But just as often, they try to monetize that green space during the latter stages of a development – green space they promised early buyers would remain green forever. Check out the warning-sign checklists in my next post before you buy property to see if your green space could someday vanish.

Scarborough property near US59 bridge west of Kingwood. San Jacinto West Fork on right. During Harvey, water was 27 feet above the level you see here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/19/2025

3034 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

Houston City Council Unanimously Passes Resolution Opposing Scarborough Development

12/17/25 – This morning, Houston City Council unanimously passed a motion opposing development on 5,000 acres owned by Scarborough Lane Development/San Jacinto Preserve immediately west of Kingwood at the confluence of Spring Creek, Cypress Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork.

In opposing the development, the resolution cited:

  • “Catastrophic flooding rendering the tract unmistakably unfit for residential development”
  • “Potential liability associated with placing future residents in an area of heightened risk for property damage, personal injury, and loss of life”
  • The need to build homes to higher standards than Montgomery County (MoCo) currently requires
  • Substantially increased flood risks for existing residents of both Montgomery and Harris Counties.

The resolution, proposed by District E Council Member Fred Flickinger, also said “the highest and best use of this property should be evaluated for flood-mitigation” and “public park purposes.”

See the Council discussing Agenda Item 18 at https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1JmfRou5CH/. It starts 2:16:17 into the video.

Today’s resolution closely matches one adopted unanimously by Harris County Commissioners Court on 12/11/25. However, neither resolution effectively kills the development. But they do send a strong message that may lead to a better outcome for nearby and downstream residents. See more below.

Scarborough’s Position

Scarborough claims that they would develop the property responsibly and observe all local floodplain regulations and development standards.

I asked their president, Ryan Burkhardt, whether they would observe the highest standards (referring to Harris County standards versus MoCo’s). He said several times that they would observe local regulations.

But MoCo standards are lower than Harris County’s. The primary differences have to do with bringing fill into the 500-year floodplain and minimum finished-floor elevations.

  • Harris County prohibits fill in the 500-year floodplain; Montgomery County allows it.
  • Harris County sets the height of living space at the 500-year flood level; Montgomery County sets it at one foot above the 100-year floodplain.

Burkhardt did say that his development plans are based on Atlas 14 statistics. But he also said that they are still at least a couple years away from detailed plans that show exactly where they plan to build houses relative to those floodplains.

Burkhardt also asked me to communicate to readers that his company plans to leave 52% of their acreage as green space. He objected to the characterization of the development as a 5,000 acre development and repeatedly said that they plan only to develop a subset of those 5,000 acres.

Detail from presentation to Houston District E and Harris County Precinct 3

Given the fact that homes nearby on higher ground have already flooded, it will be difficult to develop new homes safely at lower elevations. I asked a hydrologist who has studied development in flood-prone areas whether there was any way to develop this property safely.

He replied that the only way to do that would be to elevate the homes on stilts. That way, when floods rise, water can safely pass underneath the homes without obstruction.

But that may be difficult for large homes. Burkhardt said he plans to build large homes on large lots similar to those that are already in Bender’s Landing Estates. HAR.com shows that the median living area for homes in Benders Landing Estates is approximately 4,522 square feet. 

Typical homes in Bender’s Landing Estates

Listings in the area commonly show homes ranging from about 4,000 to 9,900+ square feet in size, with many properties built at 4,000–6,000+ square feet.

Green-Space Guarantees?

In our discussion, Burkhardt repeatedly came back to the 52% of the property that he says he would leave as green space.

That’s a selling point. We have certainly seen developers throughout the region say similar things. Living next to natural areas is a strong inducement for buyers looking at expensive homes.

But often, after developers sell the homes on higher ground, they start looking for ways to monetize the green space that they promised would remain green forever.

I’m not saying Scarborough would do that. But it’s a common practice. In fact, it’s already happened to several homeowners I talked to in Benders Landing Estates. It’s also happening to people at The Commons of Lake Houston. There, the developer fought the City of Houston for ten years (all the way to the Texas Supreme Court) for the right to build on floodplain land that he promised would remain recreational forever.

Two common strategies to guarantee land remains green forever are:

  • To put conservation easements on it through a group such as the Bayou Land Conservancy.
  • Turn it into public parks by deeding it to the City, County or State for that purpose.

However, Burkhardt was not willing to commit to either alternative.

$140 Million Mystery: Who is the Joint Venture Partner?

In my conversation with Burkhardt, he said that his project was a “joint venture.” However, he refused to tell me who the partner was.

I have learned from three other sources that the Texas General Land Office (GLO) may have something to do with the project. One other knowledgeable source said it may have something to do with a fund managed by the Governor, which the GLO administers.

Several sources told me that $140 million tax dollars were at stake. However, Burkhardt repeatedly denied that and said his company paid “close to” $140 million for the property. Hmmmm.

If this was such a good deal and if the GLO was involved, you think they would trumpet their investment. However, nearby residents who would be affected by the development had to file a FOIA request to see what the GLO’s involvement was.

The GLO denied the request and appealed it to the Attorney General. The Attorney General’s office gave the GLO the right to keep the information secret.

However, the Attorney General’s Office dragged its feet so long that it missed the deadline for responding. That made the records public by default, according to the original requestor. He therefore demanded the immediate release of all records responsive to his request.

As of this afternoon, neither the Attorney General, nor the GLO have responded with any records. I guess they must be embarrassing to someone.

If the state has no involvement, why don’t they just say so?

But they’re not saying “We are not involved.” They’re saying, “We have the right to keep our involvement secret.”

GLO Press Office Also Non-Responsive

Meanwhile, I couldn’t obtain any records either. I personally contacted the GLO press office for information. And the press office did not respond to the request. They said they needed “more time to research it.” However, the person responsible has since stopped taking phone calls or responding to emails re: the status. So, at this time, several serious questions remain:

  • What roles do the GLO and the Governor’s offices play in this “joint venture,” if any?
  • Is “joint venture” a fair characterization of the relationship, if any?
  • If the state is involved, is the involvement purely financial?
  • If so, how much money is involved?
  • Where does the money come from? 
  • Are any federal dollars involved?
  • Did the state legislature appropriate the money or is it part of an official’s discretionary budget?
  • What happens to any money committed if the developer cannot secure the necessary permits?
  • Why would an agency that manages disaster relief/flood mitigation for the state and federal government support floodplain development?
Floodplains Streams from Ryko Drainage Study
Floodplain map of Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve property

If the state invested $140 million in this property, I say we should convert it to a park and put this issue to rest in perpetuity.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/17/25

3032 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

City Council to Vote on Development in Area with Catastrophic Flooding

12/14/25 – The Houston City Council will vote Wednesday, December 17 on a resolution opposing the proposed 5,300 acre Scarborough Lane/San Jacinto Preserve Development in Montgomery County. Virtually the entire area lies in floodplains and floodways west of Kingwood near the confluence of the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, and Cypress Creek.

The resolution says that the area is “repeatedly marked by catastrophic flooding, rendering the tract unmistakably unfit for residential development.”

The City resolution comes less than a week after Harris County unanimously adopted a similar resolution

Resolution Highlights Potential Liability to Developer

The resolution, proposed by District E Council Member Fred Flickinger, also warns the developer about “potential liability associated with placing future residents in an area of heightened risk for property damage, personal injury, and loss of life.”

While the proposed development lies wholly within Montgomery County, it also lies wholly within Houston’s city limits and extra-territorial jurisdiction.

The resolution largely parallels a similar motion adopted unanimously on 12/11/2025 by Harris County Commissioners Court.

Other Key Provisions of Resolution

Among other things, the resolution urges Montgomery County to:

  • Apply Harris County drainage standards when evaluating the developer’s plans
  • Evaluate the property for flood-mitigation, flood-preservation, and public park purposes
  • Implement flood-mitigation protections while restoring wetlands, replenishing groundwater, and safeguarding the future of surrounding communities.

See the complete text below or download the PDF here.

Text of Resolution

City of Houston, Texas, Resolution No. 2025-              

A RESOLUTION OF HOUSTON CITY COUNCIL OPPOSING THE PROPOSED SCARBOROUGH LANE DEVELOPMENT IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, LOCATED IN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS AND A PORTION IN AN AREA ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS FOR LIMITED PURPOSES; CONTAINING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE FOREGOING SUBJECT.

*  *  *  *  *

WHEREAS, The City of Houston and Harris County lead the nation in flood-prevention investments, with more than $3.5 billion committed to flood-mitigation projects over the coming years, and urges Montgomery County leadership to adopt, at minimum, the drainage criteria previously approved by the Harris County Commissioners Court; and

WHEREAS, the land proposed for the Scarborough Lane Project in Montgomery County rests at the vulnerable confluence of Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, and the West Fork of the San Jacinto River, an area repeatedly marked by catastrophic flooding, rendering the tract unmistakably unfit for residential development; and

WHEREAS, any further construction within this well-documented flood zone would inevitably heighten flood dangers, placing the residents of Montgomery and Harris Counties at greater risk and compounding the devastation they have already endured; and

WHEREAS, this resolution serves as notice to the developer regarding potential liability associated with placing future residents in an area of heightened risk for property damage, personal injury, and loss of life; and

WHEREAS, the highest and best use of this property should be evaluated for flood-mitigation, flood-preservation, and public park purposes; and

WHEREAS, any development of this parcel must rigorously meet or exceed Harris County standards, including the elevation of finished floors, and any proposed mitigation ponds must be located entirely outside the current 100-year floodplain and completely beyond the floodway, ensuring no increased risk to surrounding communities; and

WHEREAS, all mitigation efforts should prioritize detaining stormwater as early as possible during rainfall events; and

WHEREAS, this tract stands as a rare and extraordinary opportunity to transform a hazardous flood zone into a steadfast shield against disaster, delivering vital flood-mitigation protections while restoring wetlands, replenishing groundwater, and safeguarding the future of surrounding communities;

NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS:

Section 1. That the findings contained in the preamble of this Resolution are determined to be true and correct and are hereby adopted as part of this Resolution.

Section 2. That the City Council respectfully calls upon the leadership of Montgomery County to reconsider the currently proposed Scarborough Lane development and any future development on this property, as it poses unacceptable hazards to future residents of Montgomery County and will substantially increase flood risks for existing residents of both Montgomery and Harris Counties.

Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and approval by the Mayor; however, in the event that the Mayor fails to sign this Resolution within five days after its passage and adoption, it shall take effect in accordance with Article VI, Section 6, Houston City Charter.

[Signatures]

HCFCD/MoCo Both Tried to Buy Property for Flood Mitigation

Harris County Flood Control District tried to buy the property after passage of the 2018 flood bond. But reportedly, the property owner at the time wanted much more than the appraised value of the property.

A person familiar with the negotiations at the time told me that, “If that property ever gets developed, it would be like aiming a fire hose at Kingwood and Humble.

Ryko, the owner at the time, planned to build 7000 new homes on the property according to Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler. Wheeler also tried to buy the property. But the developer reportedly wanted north of $100 million for it.

A press release by Wheeler, dated 12/11/25, states that he believes “preserving this land for public use and for future generations remains a shared goal across our community.”

“If successful,” Wheeler said, “the effort would allow the land to be protected for regional detention, parks, trails, and natural green spaces, ensuring it remains an environmental and recreational asset for Montgomery County residents.”

Floodplains Streams from Ryko Drainage Study
Base map from seller’s preliminary drainage analysis. Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve property outlined in red.

For More Background Information

See these previous posts about Ryko, Scarborough and the San Jacinto Preserve.

12/13/25 Harris County Passes Ramsey Resolution on Scarborough Development In MoCo

10/31/25 Supposed “Letter of No Objection” to Floodplain Development Lists 3 Pages of Objections

10/30/25 New Plans to Develop 5,316 Acres West of Kingwood Mostly in Floodplains, Floodways

10/16/25 Developer Buys 5300 Acres of Floodplains, Floodways, Wetlands from Ryko

5/7/25 Is It Safe to Build 7,000 Homes on Ryko Land?

5/6/25 Montgomery County Engineering Letter Blasts Ryko’s Drainage Study

4/25/25 Lengthy Catalog of Concerns about Proposed Ryko Development

4/23/25 Harris County Did NOT Approve Ryko Development

4/18/25 Bald Eagles Live Where Developer Wants to Build 7,000 Homes

4/17/25 MoCo Commissioner Taking Townsen Blvd. Extension Off 2025 Road Bond

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/14/25

3029 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.

Harris County Passes Ramsey Resolution on Scarborough Development In MoCo

12/13/25 – On 12/11/25, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE, introduced a resolution in Harris County Commissioners Court that urges Montgomery County (MoCo) to impose certain conditions on the proposed 5,300-acre Scarborough Development west of Kingwood. Harris County Flood Control tried to buy the property after Hurricane Harvey because they feared that if it got developed, “it would be like aiming a fire hose at Kingwood and Humble.” Ryko, the property owner at the time, quoted a price far over market value. So, the deal fell through. But those fears still exist.

While Harris County can’t force MoCo to do anything, the proposed conditions include:

  • Adopting Harris County’s proposed minimum drainage standards
  • Recognizing the extreme flood risk of development for current residents in both counties
  • Using portions of the property for flood mitigation and parks
  • Ensuring development meets or exceeds Harris County standards including:
    • Finished floor elevations
    • Placing mitigation ponds outside the 100-year floodplain and floodway
  • Fostering growth of wetlands and water filtration.
Scarborough bought most of the land you see in this picture between Spring Creek (l) and San Jacinto West Fork (r). Base flood elevation at the confluence is 25.1 feet above ground level using old, pre-Harvey flood maps.

Ramsey’s resolution is high-level; most resolutions are. But it makes good points. For instance, while MoCo’s new Drainage Criteria Manual is a vast improvement over their previous one, it still falls short of Harris County’s on several key criteria including finished floor elevations and placing fill in the 500-year floodplain. Those concerns are expressed in the text below.

Exact Text of Harris County Resolution

WHEREAS, Harris County leads the country in flood prevention investments with $3.5 billion being spent on flood mitigation projects in the next few years, and calls upon Montgomery County leadership to adopt the minimum drainage criteria as per the previously approved Harris County Commissioner’s Court document; and

WHEREAS, the land under development in Montgomery County for the Scarborough Lane Project, is situated in close proximity to Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, and the San Jacinto River, and the historical flood data of this tract of land causes concerns for residential development, and any further development on this property in the flood zone may result in a negative impact to current residents of Montgomery and Harris counties; and

WHEREAS, portions of this property should be reviewed and considered for flood mitigation, flood preservation and park development; and

WHEREAS, any development of this parcel should meet or exceed the Harris County standards, including the finish floor elevations of the structure, and any mitigation ponds be considered only outside the current 100-year floodplain and all the floodway; and

WHEREAS, any mitigation completed should consider trying to hold back water early in a storm, detaining the first of the water that falls; and

WHEREAS, this tract of land renders a significant and affordable flood mitigation opportunity that would not only prevent flood damage, but foster wetland growth and ground water filtration; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Harris County Commissioners Court calls upon the Montgomery County leadership to take into consideration the concerns described above.

Considerations Related to the Scarborough Lane Project

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this resolution be spread upon the minutes of The Harris County Commissioners Court this 11th day of December 2025.

Ramsey’s Motion Passed Unanimously; Next Up CoH

County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Ramsey and all three other commissioners voted for Ramsey’s resolution. It passed 5-0.

Houston City Council will reportedly consider a similar resolution on Wednesday. District E Council Member Fred Flickinger says he is optimistic that he has the votes to get it approved.

Note that the City actually has a bigger stick in this fight because most of the land lies within the City limits or the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). ETJ helps cities plan and regulate development in unincorporated areas near their borders, influencing growth before annexation.

On October 30, Scarborough and its engineers met with the City and Harris County to discuss their plans. At the time, they presented some high-level documents claiming that half the land would be preserved as green space. That’s certainly a step in the right direction. But is it enough? We will be in a better position to tell when we’ve reviewed their complete plans. And when Harris County Flood Control and FEMA release updated flood maps.

In the meantime, I’ll be watching to see what City Council does next Wednesday.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/13/25

3028 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.

Floodplain Maps for 5,316 Acres West of Kingwood Contradict Developer’s Claim

11/4/2025 – FEMA floodplain maps contradict a claim made by Scarborough Development/San Jacinto Preserve in a presentation made to the City of Houston and Harris County officials on 10/29/25.

The developer recently bought 5,316 acres, mostly in the floodplains and floodways of Spring and Cypress Creeks, and the San Jacinto West Fork. The land lies in both Montgomery County and the City of Houston’s extra territorial jurisdiction. The developer also wants to build a bridge into Harris County.

In documents obtained from the City of Houston, the developer claimed it would only be “developing land at or above the Atlas 14 100-year floodplain.” See copy in red box below.

Presented by developer to City of Houston and Harris County on 10/29/25.

However, superimposing their development plan on FEMA’s current floodplain maps developed before Atlas 14 contradicts that claim. Why?

The extent of proposed development matches the limits of pre-, not post-, Atlas 14 100-year floodplains.

Net: developing in this area is more dangerous than it may look. 500-year floodplains could soon become 100-year floodplains.

For more detail, see the discussion of Atlas-14’s history and the sequence of maps below.

A Brief History of Atlas 14

FEMA’s current floodplain maps for this area date to 2014, four years BEFORE the start of Atlas 14 in Texas. And to my knowledge, FEMA has not yet released new flood maps based on Atlas 14 for this region.

From FEMA floodplain map of Scarborough/SJP property. Effective date: 8/18/2014. Screen captured today.

NOAA began updating rainfall precipitation frequency estimates in 2004; they called the effort “Atlas 14.” But NOAA didn’t update Texas statistics until 2018. Such rainfall estimates form the basis for flood maps.

In Montgomery County (MoCo), pre/post estimates for the standard 100-year/24-hour rainfall varied by more than a third. MoCo adopted Atlas 14 values of ~16.1 inches for the 24-hr, 1% storm (at Conroe), up from the previous standard of ~12 inches. That’s an increase of 4.1 inches or 34%.

Just as important, until earlier this year, MoCo drainage regulations often let developers avoid building stormwater detention basins that would offset that additional rainfall.

Also consider that Montgomery County has been one of the fastest growing counties in the region and in America. Its population has grown by almost a third (31%) since 2018. That population growth comes with a growth of impervious cover (roofs, driveways, streets, parking lots, etc.) that doesn’t soak up rainfall.

I’m not aware of any recent studies that show the cumulative impact of additional rainfall and impervious cover together with a deficit of detention.

Given those issues, common sense says flood elevations would increase. And in fact, preliminary guidance from Harris County indicates that floodplains will expand by 50% to 100% when FEMA releases updated flood maps based on Atlas 14.

New Plans Show Development Extending to Old 100-Year Floodplain

When I first saw the developer’s new plans, the plans didn’t seem to match the claim that they would only develop land “at or above the Atlas 14 100-year floodplain.” That made me suspicious. So, I performed an experiment.

I superimposed the developer’s plans over FEMA’s current (pre-Atlas 14) map dated 2014. I then varied the opacity of the layers in Adobe Photoshop so I could see how the two matched up. Long story short, they matched perfectly. See the sequence of images below.

Layer 1: From FEMA’s Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Scarborough property is in center between Spring Creek (diagonal) and West Fork (right). Brown areas = 500-year floodplain. Aqua = 100-year. Striped = floodway.

Next, I superimposed the development plan that Scarborough presented to City of Houston and Harris County.

Layer 2: Gray areas with waffle pattern represent claimed “net developable area.” Red = property boundary.

Then, I varied the opacity of the development plan until you could see the floodplains behind it.

Composite with partial transparency of overlay

Enlargement clearly shows that development stops at the old, pre-Atlas-14, 100-year floodplain.

White lines from 2014 FEMA map form boundary between 100- and 500-year floodplains. And waffle patterns from developer’s plans stop at white lines.

New maps reflecting higher rainfall rates and more impervious cover will likely show those white lines cutting well into the brown so-called developable areas, if not eliminating some altogether.

Where Did Developer’s Claim Come From?

So, where did the developer’s Atlas 14 claim come from? I have talked to three people who were in the meeting. Not one could tell me with certainty. They all expressed reservations and doubts about it.

I have also reached out to Scarborough several times to understand their position, but they have yet to return phone calls or emails.

So, I’m going to remain skeptical until I see proof of their claim and FEMA’s new Atlas 14 maps. FEMA may release them in 2026. But the proposed maps will then go through public comment and revision cycles. That could mean they won’t become official for at least another three years.

Make This An Election Issue

In my opinion, the best use for this property would be to turn it into a state park. That would help protect areas both up and downstream. With an election coming up next year, our representatives will have their ears to the ground. The time to start a letter-writing campaign is now. Contact all candidates.

Turn this into an election issue.

Make sure we elect someone who is more interested in protecting public safety than private profits.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/4/25

2989 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

Supposed “Letter of No Objection” to Floodplain Development Lists 3 Pages of Objections

10/31/25 – On 10/29/25, Scarborough Development/San Jacinto Preserve pitched their plans to develop 5,372 acres in Montgomery County and build a bridge across Spring Creek to Harris County.

They told Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey and Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger that they had “letters of no objection” (LONOs) from the Montgomery County Engineer and Harris County Flood Control District. See the red box on the page below.

LONO stands for Letter of No Objection.

The phrasing of the text implies “approval.” However, reading the text of the actual letters suggests that huge concerns remain about the project.

Montgomery County Concerns

The letter from Brian Clark, Montgomery County engineer, dated 7/2/25 or one month before Ryko sold the land to Scarborough Development/San Jacinto Preserve, has no objection to the preliminary information provided but goes on to list three pages of concerns. They start with an underlined phrase in the second paragraph.

“…additional analysis will be required incorporating a definitive land plan.”

Brian Clark, PE, Montgomery County Engineer

Clark goes on to say that the land plan must be approved before any construction for any portion of the development can be approved. In addition, he says that additional analysis and construction plans must address Montgomery County’s following concerns:

  • Significant potential for erosion under homes, roads, utilities and bridge(s)
  • Need for emergency access and rescue planning during floods
  • Potential for increased floodplain levels due to future upstream development, which could place the entire project in the 100-year floodplain. “This creates a high risk of future flood blight, negatively impacting the tax base and endangering future residents,” he said.

Page 2 contains a lengthy list of information still required:

  • Detailed drainage master plan including specific lot, street, and detention pond sizing and locations.
  • Master plan that includes a comprehensive, no-rise, floodplain analysis for the 5-, 10-, 100- and 500-year Atlas 14 peak flows, along with drawings that show proposed grading and the extent of floodplain encroachment.
  • Atlas-14, 500-year water elevations in all models
  • Adequate mitigation for any fill in the 100-year floodplain
  • Develop and implement robust erosion control measures and geotechnical studies to ensure the long-term stability of the development
  • Design bridge and road network to guarantee adequate emergency access during the Atlas-14, 500-year storm
  • Analyze the proposed bridge location and describe how the proposed bridge will accommodate the dynamic (shifting) nature of Spring Creek
  • Emergency access plans must be approved by the county before any plans for sections in the subdivision will be reviewed
  • Submit documents indicating Army Corps approval, including any mitigation the Corps requires
  • Complete environmental due diligence documentation pertaining to Endangered Species Act
  • Approval of bridge plans by Harris County Flood Control District showing no modification to the main stem of Spring Creek will be required before MoCo provides any future letters of no objection.

Pages 2 and 3 contain cautions about:

  • Data and calculations made in the preliminary drainage analysis
  • A conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) must be approved by FEMA before the county can approve bridge construction plans
  • The limited nature of the LONO itself.

The letter closes with a warning:

“This memorandum does not guarantee that the ‘developable areas’ presented in the report will remain unchanged as more information becomes available.”

Brian Clark, PE, Montgomery County Engineer

That sounds like quite a mountain to climb! Especially since MoCo Precinct 3 Commissioner Rich Wheeler took the Townsen Blvd. Extension off the County’s 2025 Road Bond. Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE, also vehemently opposes a bridge across Spring Creek. And the area upstream from this development is one of the fastest growing in the region…and the country, according to the Census Bureau.

Text of Letters

Here is the entire letter, obtained via a FOIA request.

And here is the entire letter from HCFCD. It expresses many of the same concerns.

Photos Make A More Compelling Case than Engineering Studies

Having spent years now studying how upstream development changes downstream assumptions about flooding, I hope this area does not get developed. Significant public safety concerns exist.

We should never forget what happened to Kingwood and Humble, and the I-69 and UnionPacific Railroad Bridges during Harvey.

Even if Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve could build a bridge across Spring Creek, it would not form a reliable evacuation route in the event of another Harvey. Why? People coming south could be in floodwaters over their heads once they got off the bridge. See the pictures below.

US59 at West Fork during Harvey
Another view of Harvey at I-69. The Spring Creek bridge would come down in the flood, out of frame to the right. Water at this location reached 22 feet above flood stage.
west fork flood during Harvey
Townsen Road in Humble (center) where it crosses I-69. Photo courtesy of Harris County Flood Control District.
I-69 during Harvey. Photo by Melinda Ray. So much for evacuation routes to the south.
I-69 repairs
It took TXDoT almost a year to repair the I-69 bridge causing massive traffic jams on alternate routes.
UP Rail Bridge Wash Out
Harvey also destroyed the UnionPacific railroad bridge over the West Fork.

Even the I-45 and West Lake Houston Parkway bridges were damaged.

So, in my opinion, there is NO reliable evacuation route to the south. Period. End of story.

For more photos from Harvey, see Dawn of a Disaster.

The developer can save his money on the engineering studies and cut his losses. The only way to salvage anything from this disaster-in-the-making is to donate the land to Texas Parks and Wildlife, take a tax deduction, and trumpet your concern for the environment.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/31/25

2985 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.

Developer Buys 5300 Acres of Floodplains, Floodways, Wetlands from Ryko

Update 10/16/25 at 10am – The Planning Department intends to recommend deferring consideration of the general plan discussed below until after the City of Houston District E and Harris County Precinct 3 have have met with the new owner.

10/15/2025 – San Jacinto Preserve and a sister company, Scarborough Houston LLC have purchased approximately 5300 acres of land west of Kingwood from Ryko Development and its sister company, Pacific Indio Properties.

Ryko tried for years to develop the property, most of which is floodplains, floodways and wetlands where the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, Turkey Creek and Cypress Creek all converge.

Concerns about flooding may have triggered Ryko’s sale after a succession of rapid-fire setbacks:

  • May 2024 floods and the second largest release from Lake Conroe in the history of the SJRA rekindled memories of Harvey’s devastation.
  • A Townsen Blvd. extension through the property was taken off Montgomery County’s 2025 Road Bond at the request of neighboring residents and MoCo Precinct 3 commissioner Ritch Wheeler.
  • The Montgomery County Engineer blasted Ryko’s drainage study
  • Harris County Flood Control did not approve Ryko’s flood-mitigation plans.
  • Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ramsey lined up against a bridge that would connect the area to Humble.

Sale of Property to San Jacinto Preserve, LP, Scarborough Houston LLC

Under public pressure on all sides and faced with the loss of connectivity and critical infrastructure support, Pacific Indio sold the property to San Jacinto Preserve, LP and Scarborough Houston LLC in August of this year. Here is the Special Warranty Deed.

Both buyers have common ownership and management, as with Ryko and Pacific Indio. Companies often try to limit liability by setting up different companies for different projects. That way, if one part of the empire encounters trouble, it won’t bring down other parts.

In this case, the names of two men keep showing up: Ryan Burkhardt and James R. Feagin. Among the many companies under their control:

Scarborough Lane Development appears to be at the top of the food chain and headquarters in Addison, TX, a north Dallas suburb. All the other companies list the same address. So even though company names change, the same people control everything.

Scarborough Lane Development’s website says its “always committed to protecting the environment.” And it brags that it is “capable of handling the most challenging development projects.” We shall see.

Land Virtually Covered by Floodplains, Floodways

This project will test their talent as this map in Ryko’s drainage analysis shows. Only the small, dark gray areas in the red outline are above the 500-year floodplain.

Ryko drainage impact study illustration showing outline and floodplains.
Ryko’s drainage impact analysis showed this map of floodplains, floodways and streams on their property (outlined in red).

But keep in mind, that the floodplains will soon expand when FEMA releases new maps based on data acquired after Hurricane Harvey. The floodplain mapping above is from 2014. It predates the Memorial Day Flood, Tax Day Flood, Harvey, and the May 2024 flood.

On Houston Planning Commission Agenda for 10/16/25

San Jacinto Preserve’s (SJP) general plan is on the Houston Planning Commission’s consent agenda for Thursday, 10/16/25. See below. Their engineers chose to render the floodplains in barely distinguishable shades of gray this time.

Lisa Clark, who Chairs the Houston Planning Commission, also represents the San Jacinto Preserve.

Both Harris County Precinct 3 and City of Houston District E have requested the planning commission to postpone consideration until they have had the opportunity to meet with the developer and learn more about the plans.

Here is the General Plan that SJP submitted to the Planning Commission.

For a full-size, high-resolution PDF, click here.

This is a pretty high-level plan. It shows planned major thoroughfares, easements, pipelines, property boundaries, drill sites, and floodplains/floodways. But it’s not yet a plat that shows the street layouts of neighborhoods or homesites.

However, it does still show a Townsen Blvd. extension bridging across Spring Creek into Humble. That piqued my interest.

I called Mr. Burkhardt in Addison for clarification, but he did not return my phone call to confirm exactly what their plans are. So we shall have to wait and see. They will have challenges, no doubt.

MoCo Residents Successfully Protest Connectivity Plan

Yesterday, Benders Landing Estates (BLE) Property Owners Association (immediately north of the SJP property had a proposal on the Montgomery County Commissioners Court Agenda. SJP wanted to connect their new neighborhoods through a quiet, residential street (Shady Hills Landing Lane) in BLE.

They felt the street was not suited to handling the volume of traffic that a 5000+ acre development would generate. And their plan to block SJP access through the street succeeded.

Commissioners voted to abandon a one-foot-wide portion of Shady Hills Landing Lane in Benders Landing Estates Section 7. The land will vest to adjoining property owners, who can then effectively block SJP residents from exiting any new subdivisions through their property.

Commissioners Court unanimously approved the measure. It was a minor victory and likely will not affect the long-term war. But it showed the will of the community.

Profits Over People?

The San Jacinto Preserve development comes with inherent flood risks. At this point, we need to wait and see what they propose. At a minimum, it will likely include:

  • A new drainage-impact analysis
  • New plats that show the exact location of homes and their density relative to floodplains
  • Street layouts
  • The amount of impervious cover added
  • How much forest is lost
  • Flood-mitigation plans
  • A no-adverse-impact statement from Texas-certified engineers.
  • Environmental/wetlands studies including impacts on water quality in Lake Houston
Wetlands in SJP floodplain

One seasoned hydrologist held out little hope for the safe development of this property. She told me that developing it would be like aiming a firehose at Kingwood. She also suggested that the developer was putting “profits over people” and that the people of Humble and Kingwood should oppose it for their own safety. Check back often as news develops.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/15/25

2969 Days since Harvey

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