Day 400: Why We Still Care

Day 400 since Hurricane Harvey and absolutely nothing newsworthy  happened in regard to flood mitigation today. No news on floodgates. No news on the mouth bar. No news on upstream detention. No news on whether sand mines are willing to observe best practices. No news on sand mine real-estate appraisals. No news on the Ike Dike. It was a thoroughly depressing day. Just when I was ready to write it off…

Day 400 since Hurricane Harvey and nothing happened, except perhaps the most spectacular sunset I have ever seen. Could this be a sign?

BAM. A sign. Hope. Inspiration. Another reminder of why I still care so much about this place.

A scudding bank of dull, gray, featureless clouds exploded into vivid, yet subtle hues, revealing layer after layer of depth, dimension, subtlety and awesome power. It was the most beautiful sunset I have seen in years. It lasted for maybe a minute. Then the sun moved or a cloud moved and the extraordinary moment faded into dull gray clouds again.

Earlier, I caught these shots of a  spoonbill landing and a great egret taking wing.

Roseate Spoonbill

Taking wing

At moments like these, I feel at one with nature. I can feel the power of the creator breathing hope into every living thing.

So maybe tomorrow will be the day that the City Attorney’s office finds the deeds and easements for Ben’s Branch that it has been looking for for 22 years, and then the county can get on with its job of clearing the channel.

Posted by Bob Rehak on October 3, 2018

400 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Have You Given Feedback Yet to TWDB on State Flood Assessment?

Last weekend, I posted about a statewide flood assessment by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) that will help shape public policy toward flooding. After reading the report, I became concerned by the lack of a serious discussion about the role of sedimentation in flooding. So I urged readers to send feedback before Wednesday at 5pm – the close of public comment.

If you haven’t had time to read the report yet…

Consider sending an adaptation of the email below.


Address email to: 

PUBLIC-COMMENT@twdb.texas.gov

In subject line put:  

Public Comment on State Flood Assessment

First, thank you for an excellent report. I support all of your findings, but am concerned about one critical omission: sedimentation.

I live n the Humble/Kingwood/Lake Houston area. Sedimentation was and still is a major contributing factor to flooding here. The Army Corps of Engineers agrees. As a result, as taxpayers, we’re about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on dredging. It could take a year or more to unclog our river and drainage ditches.

Here’s an example of a sand bar that largely formed during Harvey, blocks the San Jacinto West Fork where it meets Lake Houston. This giant bar elevated flood levels throughout the highly populated Humble/Kingwood corridor where more than 3300 businesses and 16,000 homes were damaged or destroyed.

Sadly, a large part of the sediment we received during Harvey was preventable. It came from sand mines upstream from us on both the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto. While this sand didn’t cause the flood, it exacerbated the flood.

Moving sand mines out of the floodway would be a simple way to reduce sedimentation and flood risk. Many states have minimum setback requirements in their permitting procedures and best practice guides. Texas has no such requirement. Neither does Texas require sand mines to:

  • Reclaim land when a mine is played out.
  • Slope banks to reduce erosion and strengthen dikes.
  • Avoid clearing land until it is ready to mine.
  • Post performance bonds to cover the cost of damage they cause.

Simply observing common-sense best management practices used in other states and countries could radically reduce the sediment escaping from sand mines during floods.

Additionally, I would point out that some counties (like Montgomery) may unwittingly encourage sand mining by giving miners timber exemptions on their real estate tax that they don’t qualify for.

For instance, one Montgomery County mine on the East Fork pays $288 a year in tax on 218 acres! All because of a timber exemption that hasn’t been valid for more than a decade!

It’s a pattern. In 53 out of 53 Montgomery County sand mine properties the ReduceFlooding.com examined, not one was appraised as a sand mine! More than 90% were appraised as vacant land or ag/timber even though they were not vacant and they had no trees. So, my suggestions are to:
  • Recognize the contribution of sedimentation to flooding
  • Document sources of sedimentation
  • Encourage legislation that reduces sedimentation from the sources we can control.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

(Your Name and contact info)

Posted by Bob Rehak on 10/2/2018
399 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Montgomery County Says It Will Re-evaluate Sand Mine Appraisals

The Montgomery County Tax Appraiser’s office has indicated it will look into sand mine appraisals after two reports last week by ReduceFlooding.com that showed thousands of acres used for sand mining were not being appraised as sand mines.

Same mine, same use, same owner, radically different appraisals on each side of the county line. Montgomery County granted a timber exemption even though there is practically no timber on the the triangular one behind $56.25 per acre. Harris County appraised the land just inches south at market value. The difference is more than 12X.

17 East Fork Sand Mine Parcels Not Classified as Sand Mines

The first report reviewed 17 parcels of land on the East Fork that comprised one 2000-acre sand mine complex. Seven of those parcels received ag/timber exemptions even though they are used for sand mining. The owner paid only $3,189 in tax on 1741 acres classified as ag/timber, or $1.83 per acre.

Seven other parcels on the East Fork, owned by the same group were classified as “E4 – Vacant Rural Land over 5 acres Non-Ag” or “C1 – All Vacant Res Lts & Vacant Res Tr < 5 Acres.” Of those seven parcels, two were being mined and were definitely not vacant.

Of the 17 East Fork parcels, a total of nine (more than half) were being mined, yet not one of those was classified as being mined. Seven of the parcels being mined received ag/timber exemptions even though they were not “principally” used for agriculture or timber, one of the five standards that land must meet to qualify for that exemption. Two other parcels being mined were classified as “vacant” even though they were clearly not vacant.

35 West Fork Sand Mines Not Classified as Sand Mines

The second report reviewed 36 additional parcels of land on the West Fork. All of those were used for sand mining. However, not one was classified as a sand mine using the code G3 in State Comptroller’s  Texas Property Clasification Guide.

  • 2 were classified as “A1 – Single-family residential.”
  • 6 were classified as “D1 – Qualified Ag/Timber.”
  • 1 was classified as “E3 – Other Improvements over 5 acres Non-Ag.”
  • 24 were classified as “E4 – Vac Rural Land over 5 acres Non-Ag”
  • 1 was classified as “F1 – Commercial (real).”
  • 2 were classified as “F2 – Industrial (real).”

“That’s not right.”

Altogether, I sampled 53 different sand mine parcels in Montgomery County.

All 53 were classified as something other than sand mines.

When these inconsistencies were called to the attention of a representative of the Montgomery County Appraisal District, he seemed genuinely upset – not only by the inconsistencies, but by the apparent misclassifications. After reviewing several examples, he said, “That’s not right!” He vowed to look into the issue, asked me to send him a list of the misclassified properties, and said, “I pay my fair share of tax and want to make sure everyone else does to.”

“They Should Be Classified as What They Are – Sand Mines.”

Another official at the State Comptroller’s office verified that G3, the classification for sand mines, was still active and appropriate.

When asked if counties had the discretion to appraise mines as something else, he said, “They should be classified as what they are – sand mines.”

Regarding coding, the State Comptroller’s office does allow counties to create their own designations, for instance S for sand. However, they must report the mines to the state as G3. A quick check of neighboring counties found that some, do indeed, use alternative designations. For instance, Liberty County classifies several sand pits as “S.” Harris County just calls them sand pits. I could see no comparable alternative in Montgomery County.

Multiple Classifications Used for Similar Properties

“Multiple classifications for similar properties are highly unusual,” the official in the State Comptroller’s office said. “And you wouldn’t classify an occupied property as vacant. Maybe at one point in time they were vacant or in timber. But they no longer are. Sounds like they slipped under the radar of the chief appraiser.”

Need for Uniform Standards of Appraisal

He further stated that such appraisals are usually based on estimates of reserves, much like oil and gas. When asked if there was a specific procedure to follow for such appraisals, he said, “There are several appraisal standards and methods such as USPAP. Counties just have to pick one and stick with it, so they can be consistent and justify their appraisals.” USPAP stands for Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

“Usually, sand mine appraisals are based on tonnage, remaining reserves, and a formula for discounted cash flow. The law says you must use standard methods and appraisal practices,” said the source in the Comptroller’s office.

Most Likely an Oversight

The Montgomery County Appraisal District office also felt the appraisal inconsistencies were most likely an oversight. “The number of sand mines out there is minuscule compared to the number of homes, businesses, ranches and farms. They probably just slipped through the cracks. We rely a lot on self-reporting for these types of properties. Owners are supposed to tell us when the use of a piece of property changes.” Other counties also seem plagued by inconsistencies when it comes to sand mine appraisals, though not to the degree Montgomery County is.

Ready for a Rollback?

Mines that were receiving the ag/timber exemption which requires a special application, may be in for a large surprise if the mines are reappraised. According to state guidelines, the properties are subject to a rollback tax dating to the change of use or five years. Reappraisal equals the difference between the timber valuation and the market valuation plus 7% interest per year. Some mines have been using the ag/timber exemption for many years so penalties could add up quickly. See the State of Texas Guidelines for Appraisal of Timberlands in Chapter 2 and the rollback procedures in Chapter 3.

Same Land, Same Owner, Same Use on Different Sides of County Line – A 12X Difference

To put this issue in perspective, let’s look at the lone mine on the East Fork owned by the Guniganti Family Property Holdings LLC. The Harris/Montgomery County line bisects the lower part of the mine.

The land on the Montgomery County side is assessed as “ag/timber” even though it has been a sand pit for thirteen years. Because of the ag/timber exemption, Montgomery County taxes the land based on an assessed value of $56.25 per acre.

Montgomery County appraised the pit as timber even though it contained none.

Just inches to the south, land on the Harris County side used in an identical fashion is classified as a sand pit. That pit is taxed at its market value, which is $701.73 per acre. That’s more than a 12x difference in the taxable value for land on the same property.

Inches to the south, Harris County appraised the same land at its MARKET value for 12X more.

Montgomery County schools and hospitals could have a nice Christmas this year if all that so-called vacant land and timber land in sand mines gets re-appraised.

As always, these are my opinions on matters of public policy, protected the the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.

Posted 10/1/18 by Bob Rehak

398 Days since Hurricane Harvey