State land officials are backing away from a taxpayer-funded plan to turn thousands of acres of floodplain west of Kingwood into housing, but local leaders say the retreat raises almost as many questions as it answers. The sprawling tract sits where the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek and Cypress Creek meet, an area hammered by Hurricane Harvey and later floods. Neighbors and elected officials say they still do not know who will ultimately control the land or whether it can be locked in for regional detention, parks or public open space instead of roofs and driveways.
In a statement to the Houston Chronicle, Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham said, "This project will not be proceeding as planned," adding that her office is exploring ways to use the property for flood mitigation. The Chronicle reported that the General Land Office, or GLO, had put about $140 million into the deal alongside Scarborough Land Development, with a plan to build out roughly 5,300 acres that opponents say could hold more than 7,000 homes. Local officials welcomed the apparent pullback, but noted the statement did not spell out what happens to the state’s investment or to the engineering work that has already gone before county reviewers.
GLO’s Dual Role Fuels Conflict Fears
The GLO both administers federal disaster grants and manages state trust lands, a combination that critics argue can morph into a conflict of interest when the agency also becomes a real estate investor. Agency notices and grant documents show the GLO’s hand in Kingwood-area flood projects as well as School Land Board real estate deals, according to a GLO public notice. That overlap sits at the heart of residents’ demands for more transparency and for a long-term plan that clearly puts public safety ahead of private profit.
How The Deal Came Together
Public records and reporting show that Ryko Development submitted a drainage study to Montgomery County in June 2024, then later sold the tract to Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve in 2025, as reported by Reduce Flooding. Scarborough brought a general plan to the Houston Planning Commission, but county reviewers and engineers raised alarms about basic issues such as access, detention capacity and how much of the 5,300 acres sit inside mapped floodplains. Those technical red flags, and the unresolved question of who would pay to fix them if the land is built out, are still hanging in the air.
Local Leaders Try To Keep Land Out Of Private Hands
Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler, Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey and state Rep. Steve Toth have been working with the governor’s office and the GLO to study options for a state purchase and long-term preservation, according to Community Impact. Houston City Council and Harris County Commissioners Court passed resolutions last winter that called for tighter flood protections and urged that the land be evaluated for regional detention and public open space. Local officials say a direct state buyout, or a rock-solid conservation agreement, is the surest way to keep future homes out of the floodway.
Grassroots Heat Keeps Rising
Residents and civic groups have been turning up the volume at public meetings and online. A Change.org petition opposing the Scarborough concept lists roughly 98 verified signers. Activists say they plan to keep showing up at town halls and county sessions until there is a binding agreement that protects flood detention on the site and keeps at least some of it accessible to the public.
Transparency Fights And Legal Hurdles
Open-government advocates say public-records requests tied to the GLO’s role and the underlying land purchase were slow-walked or difficult to obtain, and that appeals for drainage and financial documents are still unresolved, according to Reduce Flooding. Because the School Land Board is allowed to invest public school trust money in real estate, lawyers and elected officials say any move to repurpose those funds, or to shift the property into a different form of state ownership, will need clear legal authority and could require legislative action to guarantee permanent protection.
The GLO’s statement takes immediate pressure off the idea of a massive master-planned community on that vulnerable ribbon of floodplain, but it leaves the central question unresolved: who will own this land and who will pay to keep it doing flood work instead of housing work. All eyes are now on upcoming contract records, grant amendments and any legislative language that appears in Austin, and on whether state and local leaders decide to lock the tract into public ownership or long-term mitigation use before another development team comes knocking.
