New Submissions Page Added to ReduceFlooding.com

I’ve added a new page to ReduceFlooding.com called “Submissions.” The Submissions page will be the place where images related to Harvey – specifically, the storm, flood, evacuations, shelters, trash, cleanup, repairs, etc. – will reside on this website. I hope the new page will become a Lake Houston Area community family album for all things related to Harvey.

Harvey flooded 6 of 9 buildings at Lone Star College/Kingwood, and cost a total of $60 million.

Please Share Your Images On Submissions Page

If you have images that you would like to share with the world, please submit them. In this way, people will never forget the horrible impact of Harvey. Perhaps your pictures will underscore the need for mitigation projects and urge elected officials to move faster on them. Perhaps they will help convince Lake Conroe residents that temporarily lowering the lake level isn’t such a bad thing after all.

On the Submissions page, you will find an email address to which you can send your images.

Requirements for Submissions

Please make sure they are in JPG or .PNG format and a reasonable size. Then I will post them. Please…no more than ten megs per email.

In your email, please remember to include captions for your submissions. Tell us the date, time, and location. Put the images in context. Keep it brief. Just a sentence or two is usually enough to explain what we are looking at. Specify whether you would like to have your name added to the caption in the credits.

By sending images, you acknowledge that you consent to have them published and that you are the owner of the images.

Don’t Wait; Send Them Now

I’ve already added two pages of images that people have sent me. Please dig through your own album and see if you have some images you would like to share. Thanks!

Posted October 4, 2018, by Bob Rehak

401 Days since Hurricane Harvey

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

 

Public Comment Period for TWDB State Flood Assessment Closes October 3

The TWDB (Texas Water Development Board) has completed its first statewide assessment of flooding. The public comment period on the first draft is open now, but closes on October 3.  That’s next Wednesday at 5pm. I plan to write about what I believe is an error of omission. You may have other concerns. One thing is certain. If something isn’t in the report, legislators won’t give it a high priority in the next session.

What/who is TWDB?

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) provides leadership, information, education, financial assistance, and support for planning,  conservation and development of water resources throughout the state.

First Draft of Statewide Flooding Study

The TWDB just finished a draft of its first statewide assessment of flood risks, planning, and mitigation, and is seeking public comment.

Download the 69-page report here.

The cover note on page one says, “Your information and thoughts on flood mitigation in our state are vital to this first comprehensive assessment on flooding in Texas. As such, please consider taking part in the public review and comment period on the Draft State Flood Assessment.”

“Your input will inform decision-making regarding the need for, and benefits of, future flood planning and financial investment.”

The public review and comment period ends at 5:00 p.m. on October 3, 2018. You can email comments to: PUBLIC-COMMENT@twdb.texas.gov.

The executive summary states the main reasons for and conclusions of the report:

  • Flooding has never been assessed at the statewide level.
  • Flood risks pose a serious threat to lives and livelihoods.
  • Much of Texas is either unmapped or uses out-of-date maps, leading to widespread
  • confusion.
  • Rainfall drives most flood events in Texas, but the rainfall data used to inform planning
  • and design are decades old.
  • Texas does not have a statewide strategic plan to address flood risk management.
  • Significant funding is required to mitigate flooding in Texas.
  • Stakeholders identified the need for additional resources directed toward floodplain
  • management and mitigation.
  • Sound science and data are the core elements of effective planning and flood mitigation.

Other Key Findings

Several things jumped out at me. One that hit home on page 26 said, “Local hazard mitigation planning … is not sufficiently scoped to provide collaborative, watershed-based strategic flood planning.”

Another on page 26 also resonated. “Only half of stakeholders reported that their jurisdiction has identified flood risk and conducted local planning efforts to develop mitigation solutions.” The Lake Houston area suffers from this problem. We are affected by Montgomery County which has no flood control district. And until recently, the SJRA had no flood mitigation division. The SJRA is trying to launch a watershed-wide study on flood mitigation, but has been trying to cobble together funding for it since March.

On page 32, the report addresses another issue that has plagued our area. It draws the distinction between planning for water supply and flood control, and the confusion between the two. Remember the protestations of the SJRA about Lake Conroe NOT being a flood control reservoir?

Floodplain Mapping, Planning and Sedimentation

The report includes very little discussion of sedimentation and its role in flooding. Chapter 4 discusses floodplains and mapping. In regard to riverine flooding, it states, “The boundaries of a natural floodplain change with each flood event as sediments are scoured and deposited within the river channel and upon adjacent lands.”

Chapter 5 also briefly mentions sedimentation in regard to planning. On Page 26, the report states that TWDB works with farmers to control sediment. However, there is no mention of sand mining in floodways, a major omission in my opinion.

Flood Mitigation

Chapter 6 on page 33 begins the discussion of flood mitigation activities. Generally, they fall into two categories: structural and non-structural. The chart below indicates the type of activities discussed by stakeholders during input sessions. The size of the rectangles indicates the frequency of responses.

Rectangle size represents frequency of responses when asked about flood mitigation activities.

Sadly, there is no mention of sediment control in regard to flood mitigation. Such omissions, represent, in my opinion, the biggest flaw in this first draft and merit public comment.

Anticipated statewide mitigation costs range from $31.5 to $36.0 billion. However, there is a statewide flood funding shortfall of $18.0 to $26.6 billion after subtracting available funds. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

The remainder of this chapter discusses funding issues.

Confusing Roles and Responsibilities

Chapter 7 discusses other barriers to implementing flood mitigation programs. They include:

  • Lack of access to local match funding sources. Only 20% of communities have a funding source for local match requirements of grant programs.
  • Confusing funding options. Currently five state agencies and five federal agencies share responsibilities for administering 16 funding programs.
  • Complicated application processes. 42 percent of stakeholders requested additional technical training and guidance in navigating the complex deadlines, requirements, and paperwork associated with both state and federal funding programs.
  • Lack of staffing. Stakeholders said insufficient staffing at all levels of government slows down the flood mitigation process. Chokepoints exist at every step of project timelines which exacerbate this issue.
  • Lack of training. No state-level requirement exists for training or certification of floodplain administrators or others with flood-related responsibilities. This problem is especially acute in rural areas. Respondents from small communities report difficulty in attending classes because of a lack in staff availability, travel funding, or related resource constraints.
  • Prolonged timelines. Project timelines for flood mitigation grant programs can take anywhere from months to years between the start of an application to the start of construction or project implementation (if non-structural). The more complex the processes, the lengthier the application review and disbursement period. Stakeholders expressed frustration with this aspect of project implementation, requesting more streamlined processes and increased transparency.

If this sounds familiar, perhaps its because I blogged about it months ago.

What I Plan to Do

Studies like these become legislative guides. If there’s no focus on sedimentation, the problem doesn’t merit debate in the next session. So…

I plan to write and ask them to include a paragraph about how excessive sedimentation contributed to flooding on the San Jacinto and how sand mines in floodways exacerbated that problem.

As always, these are my opinions on a matter of public policy, protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the Great State of Texas.

The email address is: PUBLIC-COMMENT@twdb.texas.gov. I would put Statewide Flood Assessment Public Comment in the subject line to ensure your thoughts are filed correctly.

All comments received by the deadline (Wednesday at 5pm) will be considered. For more information, visit www.texasfloodassessment.com. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Mindy Conyers of TWDB’s Surface Water staff at 512-463-5102.

Posted on September 30, 2018 by Bob Rehak

397 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Dredging Status: End of September

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spread out across the West Fork of the San Jacinto River for its Emergency Dredging Project. Here is a visual status report from a trip up the river on Friday. I went from West Lake Houston Parkway past the US59 bridge to chronicle what has become an amphibious construction project.

The first dredge belonging to Callan Marine, a subcontractor to Great Lakes Dredge and Dock, has taken up position near the high tension power lines that connect Kingwood and Kings Lake Estates.

This is what the entire dredging assembly looks like.

It has been idling in the same position more than a week while pipeline and booster pumps are connected to it upstream.

Here’s what it looks like from the stern where dredged materials will enter the pipeline that takes them back to placement area #1.

This booster pump is required because of the distance to placement area #1 behind the apartments on Townsend near North Houston Avenue just south of the river.

Pilot boat shuttles pontoon with heavy equipment into place.

Heading upriver, more pipeline waits to be connected near the dredging command site.

At the command site, staff scurries to get the second dredge ready to launch before mid-October.

Dredge #2 owned by Great Lakes Dredge and Dock. This electric dredge will pump sediment to placement area #2 and require more booster pumps than the first dredge because of the length of the pipeline, almost five miles. Placement area #2 is on Sorters Road just south of Kingwood College.

Close up of the business end of the second dredge still at the dock. The rotating assembly stirs up sediment which is then suctioned into the pipeline and pumped to a placement area.Workers loading water into pipeline to get it to submerge. 

Pontoon with crane and pipeline welding equipment.  Sections of pipe waiting to be connected provide a convenient resting place for egrets and other water fowl.

The debris barges will offload their cargo here, where it will be transferred into these trucks and hauled away for processing or landfill.

Meanwhile, another crew scouts a route to placement area #2. Up the West Fork near Kingwood College, the river is so shallow, it may not be deep enough to float pipeline. If dredging in this reach of the river becomes necessary, it could delay the job and increase costs.

From this brief visual trip up the river, you can see that much prep work remains before full dredging can start. The second dredge has not yet launched and no pipeline has reached placement area 2. City officials have stated that the Corps hoped to be in full operation by mid-October. The 270-day clock for this project began ticking on August 19. Two hundred and twenty-nine days remain to the expected completion. Before the project is done, the Corps expected to move 1.8 million cubic yards of sand and sediment out of the river. 

Posted by Bob Rehak on September 30, 2018

397 Days since Hurricane Harvey

 

San Jacinto River at Its Finest: Nature the Way It Was Meant to Be

Today, I took a much needed rest from floods, sand mines, sedimentation and tax appraisals. A friend took me and two others out on his boat for a day long encounter with nature. We explored the West Fork, East Fork, Taylor Gulley, Caney Creek, Peach Creek and Luce Bayou. It was a cool, overcast day…the kind that’s perfect for nature photography. Diffused light. Saturated colors. Quiet moments. An intense feeling of beauty and oneness with nature.  Restful and rejuvenating. It taught me that there are still places on the San Jacinto that haven’t been screwed up yet. Places worth fighting for. Today reminded me of something Ansel Adams once said, “If you want to preserve nature, inspire people with its beauty.” Here’s my humble attempt. I hope you enjoy these moments as much as I did. Most were taken far up the East Fork.

Posted on 9/29/2018 by Bob Rehak with grateful thanks to Josh Alberson, his boat, and the Creator.

396 Days since Hurricane Harvey

New 100-year 24-Hour Rainfall Map and Data Released by NOAA Today

New data shows the 100-year rainfall for this area has increased 4-5 inches since the NOAA study in 1961 or 2-3 inches since the USGS study in 2004. This is why flood mitigation and reducing sedimentation are so important. Basically, what we used to think of as a 100-year storm is now almost a 25-year storm.

NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 11: The New Go-By for Everything Related to Rainfall

Today, the Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center of the NOAA’s Office of Water Prediction released updated precipitation frequency estimates for Texas.

They are published as  NOAA Atlas 14 Volume 11: Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States, Texas.

The new precipitation frequency estimates supersede the NOAA estimates published in 1961, 1964, and 1977, and the USGS estimates published in 2004. The new NOAA estimates include data from Harvey and all of the huge storms we have had since 1994 including Tropical Storm Allison, the Tax Day Flood and the Memorial Day Flood. Here’s what the 100-year/24-hour rainfall map looks like. Note that the Houston to Beaumont area is in the bulls-eye.

The new 100-year 24-hour Rainfall Intensity Map. Accompanying documentation, describing the data used in this project and project methodology, will be published in December 2018.

For a full scale map like the one above, download this PDF: tx100y24h rainfall intensity pdf.

Zooming in on the Houston area shows that the new 100-year 24-hour rainfall for the Lake Houston area is between 17 and 18 inches depending on your exact location.

To find precise figures for your location, go to the Precipitation Frequency Data Server – PFDS.

The data varies by location, so…

First, select your location in the map, then click on the gage nearest you.

Next, review the rainfall table associated with that gage. Clicking on the other tabs or “print” brings up additional information.

Then review the new data for different time periods and recurrence intervals. This may be the information you want to keep handy for ready reference.

Comparison to Previous Studies

From this data, we can see that – for the gage at the San Jacinto and US59 – the new, official 100-year rainfall is 17.3 inches in a 24-hour period.

Compare a previous dataset published. Look on page 58 for the 100-year/24 hour data from 1961. Twelve inches in 24-hours represented the old 100-year rainfall for our area for decades.

USGS also published a precipitation frequency study in 2004.  See the USGS Rainfall Maxima Guide for Texas (Warning: 40 meg PDF). I believe it became the basis for the current flood-plain maps redrawn after Tropical Storm Allison that were released in 2007. It shows the 24-hour, 100-year rainfall to be about 13 inches.

How New Data Will Be Used

What does it mean that the 100-year rainfall has increased 4-5 inches?

First and foremost, it means that all of the floodplain maps will be revised. One expert I talked to suspected that the new 100-year floodplain could be close to where the 500-year flood plain is now. However, that is far from certain and not official.

Floodplain Maps

The flood plain maps have not yet been redrawn, as Matt Zeve, Harris County Flood Control Director of Operations, discussed at the September meet of the Lake Houston Area Grass Roots Flood Prevention Initiative. The next step is for the County to process the new rainfall data in a new 2-D model that the Flood Control District has developed with new high-resolution LIDAR data. Contour internals in the new models will shrink from feet to inches. The LIDAR data also reflects new conditions in the watershed (developments, road expansions, siltation in ditches, etc.), so predictions should become much more accurate.

Insurance

Based on the new rainfall data, flood insurance rates could also change.

Construction

Finally, the new data will become crucial in city planning, construction and permitting. The City is already demanding that new construction be raised to two feet above the 500-year flood plain. Perhaps Mayor Turner had a hint of what the new numbers would show when he suggested the new construction standards.

Infrastructure

The larger rainfall totals also mean that cities must use larger storm drains and sewers in new developments. Everything will change.

For more information about the new data, review this quarterly newsletter from NOAA.

Posted on September 27, 2018 by Bob Rehak

395 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Inconsistencies in Montgomery County Sand-Mine Real-Estate Tax Appraisals

Analysis of Montgomery County real estate tax records reveals wide inconsistencies in the way sand mines are appraised. Fifty three parcels of land in Montgomery County devoted to sand mining received seven different real estate tax classifications. Not one classification had anything to do with mining, though one parcel was classified as commercial land and two were classified as industrial.

Sand Mines on East and West Forks of the San Jacinto are appraised seven different ways from Sunday.

36 West Fork Mines Received Six Different Classifications

Sampling 36 parcels of land used for sand mining on the West Fork of the San Jacinto revealed that properties were taxed as:

  • A1 – Residential Single Family (1)
  • D1 – Qualified Ag & Timber Land (6)
  • E3 – Other Improvements over 5 acres Non-Ag (1)
  • E4 – Vac Rural Land over 5 acres Non-Ag (24)
  • F1 – Commercial (real) (1)
  • F2 – Industrial (real) (2)

The numbers in parentheses represent the number of parcels found within each category. The sample included West Fork mines larger than 5 acres from US59 to just west of I-45 on the San Jacinto River’s West Fork that showed clearly visible mining activities on the Montgomery County Appraisal District website.

17 East Fork Parcels Classified 3 Different Ways

Yesterday, I posted about one San Jacinto East Fork/Caney Creek mine in Porter that was subdivided into 17 different parcels. The parcels were classified as:

  • D1 – Qualified Ag & Timber Land (10)
  • C1 – All Vac Res Lts & Vac Res Tr < 5 Ac (3)
  • E4 – Vac Rural Land over 5 acres Non-Ag (4)

Real Estate Tax Roulette?

Altogether, the East and West Fork parcels represent a sample size of 53. Excluding undeveloped land reserved for expansion, several things stood out.

  • Sometimes adjacent pieces of land that were being used in identical ways received different classifications.
  • Areas dedicated to mining – often without any agriculture or timber – received ag/timber exemptions that dramatically lowered their taxes.
  • None of the parcels appeared to be vacant, yet 27 parcels out of 53 (more than half) were classified that way.
  • NOT ONE parcel of the 53 received a G3 Category classification for sand mines.

Not One Parcel Classified as “Subsurface Interests”

The G category in Texas Property tax includes “Real Property: Oil and Gas, Minerals and Other Subsurface Interests.” The Texas Property Clasification Guide states on page 10, “… real property defined as mines and quarries, should be reported as Category G3.”

The Texas State Controller’s website states: “Tax Code Section 23.01 requires … the same appraisal methods and techniques be used in appraising the same or similar kinds of property.”

Yet 53 parcels of land in Montgomery County devoted to sand mining received seven different classifications, not one of which had anything to do with mining.

Financial Impact of Inconsistencies

So how big of a deal is this? Yesterday, we saw the value of an ag/timber exemption compared to land classified as C1 and E4 on the East Fork. The actual tax due for the ag/timber land was $1.83 per acre. But the tax due on other land not receiving the exemption was $102.36 – 56 times more!

Today, I discovered similar inconsistencies on the West Fork.

However, even $99/acre is still dirt cheap!

To see the list of who’s classified as what, download this Excel worksheet, West Fork MCAD Classifications.

I still need to investigate this more. Is there a policy in Montgomery County NOT to classify mines as mines? Why are subsurface interests being given away? Did the State do away with the G3 classification?

I’m sure the Montgomery County Appraiser can help us understand why none of the sand mines on the San Jacinto are classified as mines and why half of them receive ag/timber exemptions they apparently don’t qualify for.

Posted by Bob Rehak on September 27, 2018

394 Days since Hurricane Harvey

 

 

East Fork Sand Mine in Montgomery County Appraised as Ag/Timber Land

I wish I could get a deal like this! A cardiologist from Nacogdoches named Dr. Prabhakar R. Guniganti (in a trust set up for his family members) owns virtually all the land used for sand mining adjacent to Kingwood on Caney Creek, White Oak Creek and the East Fork of the San Jacinto. Here’s the best part! The land isn’t taxed as industrial land. It’s taxed as agricultural and timberland, even though:

Guidelines for Appraisals

Among other stringent requirements, State and County guidelines say that if a parcel is clear cut, it cannot go without replanting for more than two years to quality. The guidelines also state that both timber and agricultural land must be used at an intensity comparable to the surrounding area. Additionally, timberland must be used with the intent to produce income from timber and be devoted principally to the production of timber.

Guniganti is not alone; I’m just using him and his trust as an example. Several of the sand mines on the West Fork are also taxed at the same agricultural/timber rate.

$241 in Tax on Ten Acres

I found one 10-acre parcel of Guniganti land that owed a whopping $241.09 in real estate tax for 2017. Deal of the century! It hasn’t had any timber on it for about three years and Montgomery County is still assessing it as timberland for 2018.

See for yourself.

  1. Review the land’s history in Google Earth.
  2. Go to the Montgomery County Appraisal District website and click on a parcel of land within the sand mine to check its tax history.
  3. Cross-check the information against the Montgomery County Tax Assessor/collector’s website. The two sites don’t always agree, but the assessor issues the actual tax bills, so for the purposes of this analysis we’re using the assessor’s info when computing taxes paid.

When I clicked on Guniganti’s 10-acre parcel as discussed in Step 2 above, here’s what I found. A little gray box popped up describing the location and size, plus the owner’s name. In this case, Guniganti no longer owns the property himself; he sold it to a trust in his family’s name, Guniganti Family Property Holdings LLC (limited liability corporation). LLCs are a common strategy that land owners use to insulate themselves from liability that may arise from use of the property.

The blue box shows the boundary of the ten acres within the mine.  Clearly, there is no timber on this land and it is part of the mine.

Clicking on “View property information,” tells you the classification of the property, tax rates that apply to it … and the history of ownership, Note that Guniganti bought this parcel in 2014 and sold it to his LLC in 2017. Also note that, despite the sale, the market value of the property is assessed at $0.00 and its agricultural market value is also assessed at $0.00.
.

Because the Montgomery County appraiser classifies this parcel as “Timber,” the County, emergency services, the hospital, college, and school districts will have to split up a grand total of $241.09.

Nevertheless, Montgomery County taxed the 10 acres at $10,000. At a 2.4109% tax rate, the family trust owed $241.09 on this land in 2017. Here’s the actual tax bill for 2017 from the assessor’s web site:

Of course, the land originally contained timber. Montgomery County appraises it as though it still does. That’s sweet if you’re Guniganti – especially when you consider that he owns nearly 2000 acres in the area and all but 217 are classified as Ag & Timber.

Back in 1966 and 1978, the Texas legislature saw the value of ranch, farm and timberland increasing exponentially. Many family farms and ranches were being taxed out of existence. They didn’t make enough money to pay real estate taxes at the normal market value. So the legislature created special exemptions, first for family farms, and then for corporations and trusts.

Fair enough. We certainly need farms and ranches.

But why should sand mines enjoy the Ag/Timber tax break? These are multi-million dollar businesses.

$288 in Tax on 218 Acres

Let’s look at another example of how Guniganti benefitted from an exemption that he didn’t seem to qualify for.

This 218-acre parcel occupies most of the middle of Guniganti’s mine. Though it has some timber on the periphery, approximately 90% of it appears to be used for sand mining.

That parcel has a market value of $439,480, but was appraised at $12,450 because of the agricultural/timber classification.

In this second example, the 2017 tax due on a 218-acre, income-producing property with a market value of nearly half a million dollars is just $287.71Here’s the actual 2017 tax bill.

Almost 2000 Acres in Two Categories

What about the rest of the mine and the surrounding property which will be used for expansion? As luck would have it – for comparison purposes – the Guniganti Family Trust owns 17 different parcels of land in and around the mine totaling almost 2,000 acres.

Guniganti owns 17 parcels of land in Montgomery County totaling about 2000 acres. For an interactive list, click on the image above.

Most parcels are classified Ag/Timber including approximately 750 acres being mined. However, several are classified as “unimproved rural” and one was “unimproved residential.” Check them for yourself if you have several hours.

This spreadsheet breaks the Guniganti Family Trust properties down into two different categories: Ag/Timber and Other to show the benefits of the ag/timber classification.

The Big Payoff

In 2017, thetaxable value per acre of the ag/timber land was $68 per acre. But the taxable value for the land not receiving any exemption was $3,120 per acre – 46 times more.

The actual tax due for the ag/timber land was $1.83 per acre. But the tax due on other land not receiving the exemption was $102.36 – 56 times more!

Guniganti still enjoys the ag/timber benefit on these properties for the 2018 tax year.

Substantial differences.

Almost 90% of Guniganti’s land is classified as ag/timver. However, he paid seven times more tax on his other land.  Thus, you can see the benefits of the exemption.

In total, Guniganti paid $3,189.61 in tax on 1741 acres receiving the ag/timber classification. Those parcels have a market value in excess of $4 million.

Had that property been taxed at the Montgomery County Appraisal District’s opinion of their market value, he would have had to pay about $120,000 more in tax

I still don’t understand how sand mines qualify for Ag/Timber rates when all the ag and timber is long gone. I hope there’s a reasonable explanation. Not all sand mines in Montgomery County receive the ag/timber exemption. But that’s a story for another day.

As always, these represent my opinions on matters of public policy. They are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statute of the great State of Texas.

Posted 9/26/2018 by Bob Rehak

393 Days since Hurricane Harvey