Tag Archive for: Montgomery County

Tax Bill Inequity: How You Make Up for Sand Miners

‘Tis the season…for tax bills. As I paid mine this weekend, I reflected on how Montgomery County’s under-appraisals of sand mines resulted in over-taxation of other properties there and elsewhere. Here’s how.

Lone Star College System Provides Basis for Comparson

The Lone Star College System taxes property in several counties including Montgomery and surrounding counties. That includes northern Harris County. Lone Star’s tax rate is identical in each: 0.107800. However, because Montgomery County consistently under-values sand-mine properties, other property owners there and in surrounding counties must pay more than their fare share of Lone Star taxes to balance Lone Star’s budget.

In September, I ran a series of posts focused on sand mine appraisals in Montgomery County. The first examined the sand mine on the East Fork. The second examined multiple sand mines on the West Fork. The third talked about how Montgomery County consistently under-classified the use of sand-mine land. Of the 53 different parcels of land sampled, not one was classified as a sand mine.

Montgomery County classified:

  • 16 parcels as “Timber” even though there was no or little timber on them and the land was clearly being used for sand mining.
  • 31 parcels as “Vacant” despite mining operations on the property.

To be fair, miners had not yet timbered parts of several parcels intended for expansion.

The Timber Dividend in Sand Mines

I started digging back into the sand-mine property tax bills to see how much of a break these big businesses were getting compared to me.

One 10-acre parcel owned by Guniganti Family Property Holdings on the East Fork (see below) received a timber exemption even though there’s scarcely a tree on the property and the land hasn’t been in timber for years. It clearly doesn’t meet the qualifications for the timber exemption as outlined by the Texas State Comptroller. The official that I talked to in the Montgomery County Appraisal District office agreed.

Montgomery County Parcel R53336, part of the Guniganti mine on the East Fork. Tax due to the Lone Star College system equals $10.78 for all ten acres thanks to a timber exemption. The 10 acres is inside the aqua-colored line.

 

Guniganti LSC tax bill for ten acres above shows $10.78 total for ten acres thanks to the timber exemption.

On those 10-acres, the Guniganti’s paid a total of $10.78 in tax to the Lone Star College System or $1.08 per acre. By comparison, I paid $338 to Lone Star for my one-acre residential lot in northern Harris County. That means, the Guniganti’s paid 313 times less per acre for their income producing property. And they own more than 1700 additional acres of land with the timber exemption.

Another example: Edward Boettcher Jr. from Brenham owns one sixth of a 367-acre parcel on the West Fork also used for sand mining. He received a timber exemption on his property which reduced the LSC taxable value by 96%. That meant he paid a total of $11.28 to the Lone Star College District for his 61-acre share of the income-producing property. He paid $0.18/acre – 1878 times less than I paid. 

Boettcher will pay only $11.28 to LSC on his share of one-sixth share of 367 acres.

Vacant Land That’s Not

And what about that land classified as “Vacant”?  RGI Materials owes Lone Star $296.27 on 134.6 acres of land, or $2.20/acre – 154 times less than I paid as an individual on non-income producing land.

RGI did NOT have a timber exemption so they paid $296.27 to LSC in taxes on 135 acres classified as vacant.

Inconsistencies Abound

The 53 different parcels of land examined in September received 10 different types of classifications even though they were all being used for the same purpose – sand mining. Only one parcel was classified as commercial and only two were classified as industrial. The vast majority were classified as vacant rural land or timberland. After calling these inconsistencies to the attention of the Montgomery County Appraisal District almost two months ago, it appears that little or nothing has changed. Spot checks failed to turn up any reclassifications. Vast differences and inconsistencies remain…even among sand mines.

By the way, the state comptroller’s office says, and I quote, “Sand mines should be classified as sand mines.” That means they should be valued according to their income producing potential. It doesn’t appear that Montgomery County appraises them that way; the values rarely change from year to year – not what you would expect from depleting assets.

Season for Sharing

Yes, ’tis the season for sharing. And those generous sand miners are sharing their tax obligation with you through dubious exemptions, mis-classifications, and valuations that have nothing to do with the income-producing value of the land.

Someone has to make up the difference in the Lone Star College System budget and luckily (for the sand miners), that’s you and me.

These appraisals and tax bills illustrate how we’re all connected. It also underscores the need for consistent appraisals and state oversight of appraisal districts.

Luckily for residents of Harris County, only the Lone Star College portion of tax bills is affected. Residents of Montgomery County, however, take the full hit; all portions of those tax bills are affected.

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

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/18/2018

447 Days since Hurricane Harvey

PS: I should add that the Lone Star College System has nothing to do with appraisals or exemptions.

 

Subsidence, Flooding and the Lone Star Ground Water Conservation District Election

Note: If you are from Harris County, you cannot vote in this election, but it still affects you. Please forward this link to friends in Montgomery County. This is an update of a previous post and recommends some candidates at the end.

Next Tuesday, Montgomery County voters will elect board members to the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District (LSGCD) for the first time ever. Some candidates advocate using more groundwater, a move that could give residents cheaper water in the short run, but which could also cause subsidence and contribute to flooding in the long run. It could even create shortages, raise water costs and limit growth. Here’s how.

How Subsidence Can Increase Flood Risk

When ground subsides, it sinks. In this region, the primary cause is groundwater removal.

“Using surface water instead of groundwater reduces subsidence. Where groundwater use has been reduced, subsidence has generally ceased,” said Michael Turco, General Manager of the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District. 

Southern Montgomery County, and northern and northwestern Harris County have some of the highest subsidence rates in the region today.

Yet some Montgomery County voters advocate removing more ground water because, at this moment, it’s cheaper than surface water. They are betting their future and their neighbors’ futures on it.

One part of Baytown, the Brownwood subdivision, is a classic, visually striking, and cautionary example of subsidence.  Brownwood subsided so much that it became uninhabitable. Excessive groundwater pumping by industry around Galveston Bay caused the area to sink ten feet.

In 1944, the area that would become Brownwood in Baytown was starting to show signs of development.

By 1978, Brownwood was well developed…and sinking fast. Then, in 1983, a 12-foot storm surge from Alicia destroyed the entire community.

Today, Brownwood floods so much that all homes are gone. Baytown converted what was left into a park.

Coastal vs. Differential Subsidence

Inland areas also face flood threats from subsidence, but not the kind associated with storm surge. In Montgomery County and surrounding areas, the flood threat comes from sinking at different rates in different places.

Example: subsidence around Jersey Village created a “bowl” within the landscape that has been linked to increased flooding there. See the contour map below.

Other examples: The Woodlands and Kingwood sank two feet in the last century. Most of Buffalo Bayou sank eight.

Red contours show subsidence in last century. Blue contours show subsidence in first 16 years of this century. Note how the small red circle near Jersey Village (A) quickly expanded to the large blue circle around it. Also note (B) the widening gap between red and blue at the top of the frame. This shows that areas that depend on groundwater, i.e., Montgomery County, are subsiding faster than those on surface water, i.e., most of Harris County. Source: Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.

Three Ways Unequal Subsidence Increases Flood Risk

Unequal sinking contributes to flooding by changing the slope of rivers and streams.

  • If the slope increases, water flows faster and contributes to flooding downstream.
  • If slope decreases, water moves more slowly or even pools, contributing to flooding upstream.
  • Sinking between two drainage basins can even divert floodwater from one basin to another.

The “Pump-Now, Let-Somebody-Else-Pay-Later” Mentality

Subsidence happens so slowly that some people claim it’s not a problem – especially those on higher ground. They want to continue pumping water from wells because they perceive it to be cheaper than surface water.

It can be – at least in the short run– until wells run low or dry. Then pumping costs increase – often along with salinity – and the people who depend on the well are out of water and out of luck.

Much of the groundwater in Montgomery County used for human consumption is pumped from the Jasper aquifer which also affects Harris and Galveston Counties. Source Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.

And that high ground they enjoyed? If it subsides faster than surrounding areas, they can alter the slope of rivers and creeks, increasing their own flood risk, like Jersey Village. This is currently happening in southern Montgomery County and northern Harris County.

Depleting at More Than 500X the Recharge Rate

Still, some people say, “I’ll worry about that when it becomes a problem.”

Problem is:

The rate of depletion will exceed the rate of recharge by more than 500X – an environmental catastrophe.

More Expensive in Long Run

Now consider this. Experience and science show that pressure in an aquifer will decrease when pumping exceeds the recharge rate. And as pressure in an aquifer decreases, the cost of bringing water to the surface increases dramatically. Then recovery is no longer economical, i.e., competitive with surface water. It’s like the oil industry. As a rule of thumb, half the oil in reservoirs is left underground. It’s simply too expensive to recover because of low pressure.

For all these reasons, most counties in the region are trying to switch people to surface water. Groundwater withdrawals in Waller, Liberty, Grimes, Walker and San Jacinto Counties have either declined or stayed the same since 2000.

Counties surrounding Montgomery have either decreased groundwater pumping or kept it steady.

Meanwhile, Montgomery County’s groundwater withdrawals have soared. A report by LBG Guyton Associates to the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District showed that the largest pumping increase since 2000 occurred in Montgomery County.

Montgomery County groundwater pumping virtually tripled in the last three decades.

Montgomery County Growth

The surge in Montgomery County groundwater usage is largely because of growth. On a percentage basis, Montgomery County is growing faster than any county in the region except Fort Bend.

Montgomery County growth trails only Fort Bend.

So Why Worry NOW?

Water resources take so long to develop that they need to be planned 50 years ahead. If Montgomery County hopes to keep growing rapidly, where will water come from to support that growth? Especially if voters undermine financial viability of the half-billion-dollar, surface-water treatment plant – that they just built – by shifting back to groundwater!

The San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) finished the plant in 2015 to comply with the LSGCD requirement to reduce groundwater use. Many people don’t realize that the SJRA pumps groundwater from 38 wells to supply The Woodlands. The SJRA must comply with LSGCD regulations like everyone else.

To comply, the SJRA and 90 other water utilities who partnered with them, drew up plans for a surface water treatment plant and signed contracts to purchase water from it. The SJRA then borrowed money from the State and built the plant. Inevitably, the cost of water increased to cover construction.

After it was built, several providers changed their minds and began pushing the LSGCD board to produce more groundwater to take costs back down. When the board refused, the breakaway faction succeeded in getting a measure on November’s ballot to elect an LSGCD board more favorable to groundwater pumping.

Since 2001, the LSGCD has had a nine-member board appointed by a combination of local entities. They include Montgomery County, cities, and MUDs. The SJRA even has one seat.  The appointees are experts who fully understand the future consequences of subsidence and unlimited groundwater pumping; an elected board may not.

If an elected board ignores the science and allows unlimited groundwater pumping, it would affect the financial projections on which the surface water plant was built.

Betting the Future

If people vote for candidates who advocate using “cheaper” groundwater in the short term, they will also be voting for subsidence and policies that limit long-term growth. Without question, they will be betting their future, their children’s futures and their neighbors’ futures on a rapidly depleting water source.

If that’s the will of the people, so be it. I just hope they don’t set a precedent that residents in neighboring counties follow. If so, we could all be sunk.

Candidates Who Believe in Science-Based, Groundwater Management

Fortunately, there are people running for LSGWCD board positions who believe in science-based, groundwater management. Knowledgeable acquaintances in Montgomery County recommend the following candidates who, they say, have professional experience related to water management and/or water supply, and would work to preserve Montgomery County’s future, reduce subsidence and prevent flooding:

  • Place 1, County Precinct 1 – Stuart Taylor
  • Place 2, County Precinct 2 – Garry Oakley
  • Place 3, County Precinct 3 – Rick Moffatt
  • Place 4, County Precinct 4 – Gail Carney
  • Place 5, County At Large – Gregg Hope
  • Place 6, Conroe – Jackie Chance, Sr.
  • Place 7, The Woodlands – Kent Maggert

Please spread the word to every voter you know in Montgomery County.

Posted by Bob Rehak, November 3, 2018

431 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

 

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 $287.71. Here’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

Another Storm Brewing: The Groundwater Debate and How It Relates to Flood Risk

Groundwater relates to flooding? Yes. Here’s how. And here’s why you should care, especially now.

In November, Montgomery County voters will elect board members to the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District who may advocate using more groundwater, a move that some believe could give residents cheaper water in the short run, but which could also cause subsidence, contribute to flooding, create shortages, raise costs and limit growth in the long run.

Unequal Groundwater Withdrawals, Unequal Subsidence

Subsidence is scientifically well documented and understood. Removing groundwater from clay causes the clay to compress. When that happens, you sink. And once clay is compressed, it stays compressed forever – even when rehydrated.

Yet some Montgomery County voters are advocating removing more groundwater because, at this moment, it’s cheaper than surface water. They are betting their future and their neighbors’ futures on it.

Subsidence can contribute to flooding because not everybody subsides equally. While Kingwood only subsided two feet in the last century, one part of Baytown subsided so much that it became uninhabitable in about half that time.

In 1944, the area that would become Brownwood in Baytown was starting to show signs of development.

By 1978, Brownwood was well developed…and sinking fast.

Today, the area floods so much that it is uninhabitable. All the homes are gone. Brownwood has been turned into a park.

The “Pump-Now, Let-Somebody-Else-Pay-Later” Mentality

Subsidence generally happens so slowly that some people claim it’s not a problem. Especially those on higher ground. They want to continue to pump water from their wells because they perceive it to be cheaper than surface water. It can be…at least in the short run..until wells run low or dry. Then pumping costs increase…often along with salinity…and the people who depend on the well are out of water and out of luck.

Gulf Coast Aquifers: Source Harris-Galveston Subsidence District. Much of the water in Montgomery County used for human consumption is pumped from the Jasper aquifer.

Depleting at More Than 500X the Recharge Rate

Still, some people say, “I’ll worry about that when it happens.” Problem is:

The rate of depletion will exceed the rate of recharge by more than 500X.

More Expensive in Long Run

Now consider this. As pressure in an aquifer decreases, the cost of bringing water to the surface increases dramatically, sometimes to the point where recovery is no longer economical, i.e., competitive with surface water. It’s much like the oil industry. As a rule of thumb, half the oil in reservoirs is left in the ground because it’s too expensive to recover.

For all these reasons, most counties in the region are trying to switch people to surface water. Their groundwater withdrawals have either declined or stayed the same.

Counties surrounding Montgomery have either decreased groundwater pumping or kept it constant.

Meanwhile, Montgomery County’s groundwater withdrawals have soared.

Montgomery County groundwater pumping, however, has generally increased in the last three decades.

A report by LBG Guyton Associates to the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District showed that the largest increase in pumping since 2000 has occurred in Montgomery County. Pumping in surrounding counties has generally decreased since 2000.

Montgomery County Growth

The surge in Montgomery County groundwater usage is largely because Montgomery County has grown so quickly. With the exception of Fort Bend County, Montgomery County is growing faster than any county in the region on a percentage basis.

Houston Region growth last year by county. In percentage terms, Montgomery County trailed only Fort Bend County. 

So Why Worry NOW?

Water resources take so long to develop that they need to be planned 50 years into the future. The Houston region’s population tripled in the last 50 years.

If Montgomery County expects to grow that fast in the next 50, where will the water come from to support that growth? Especially if voters undermine the financial viability of the half-billion dollar surface-water treatment plant – that they just built – by shifting to groundwater!

Proponents of unlimited groundwater pumping in Montgomery County will ELECT directors of the Lone Star Groundwater Conservation District for the first time in November.

If people vote for candidates who advocate use of “cheaper” groundwater in the short term, they will also be voting for subsidence and policies that limit long-term growth. Without question, they will be betting their future on a rapidly depleting water source.

If that’s the will of the people, so be it. I just hope they don’t set a precedent that residents in neighboring counties follow. If so, we could all be sunk.

Red contours show subsidence in the last century. Blue contours show how much subsidence has increased in the first sixteen years of this century. Note the widening gap between red and blue at the top of the frame. It shows that subsidence in Montgomery and northern Harris Counties is increasing at an increasing rate. Parts of Harris County have subsided 10 feet! Source: Harris-Galveston Subsidence District.

Posted 9/14/2018 by Bob Rehak

382 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Note: Because this is such an important issue, I have created a new tab titled Subsidence on the Reports page. 

Montgomery County Floodplain Management Regulations Affecting Sand Mines: Are They Being Enforced?

A friend called my attention to Montgomery County Floodplain Management Regulations.  These regulations govern permitting of sand mines in the county. The thoughts are great. But are the regulations being enforced? Are they actually protecting the people of Montgomery County and residents downstream? You be the judge.

Findings of Fact

The regulations start out with “Findings of Fact.” They state on page 4:

“The flood hazard areas of Montgomery County are subject to periodic inundation, which results in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, and extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare.” Also…

“These flood losses are created by the cumulative effect of obstructions in flood plains which cause an increase in flood heights and velocities, and by the occupancy of flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to floods and hazardous to other lands because they are inadequately elevated, flood-proofed or otherwise protected from flood damage.”

When they wrote that last statement, they may not have anticipated the specific problem of the giant sandbar at the mouth of the San Jacinto River, but it certainly applies. The bar is backing water up throughout Humble, Kingwood and Atascocita,  and it was created – in part – with sand that came from mines built in the West Fork floodway.

The second part of that last statement about “inadequately elevated, flood-proofed or otherwise protected from flood damage” also applies.  Common-sense best management practices required in other states could have helped protect us. Those include moving mines out of the floodway, not mining below the thalweg, greater setbacks from the river, wider dikes with more gradual slopes, replanting areas already mined, and more. If only those BMPs were practiced here!

Statement of Purpose

Also on page 4, the next section, “Statement of Purpose,” says, “It is the purpose of these regulations to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to: 

  1. Protect human life and health; 
  2. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; 
  3. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; 
  4. Minimize prolonged business interruptions; 
  5. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in flood plains

Just downstream from River Grove Park in Kingwood, a new sandbar has formed on the west fork of the San Jacinto. Boats that draw 18 inches of water can no longer navigate upstream (foreground) past this sandbar.

Primary Threat of Sand Mining

The primary threat from sand mines is sand and sediment that washes out of the mines during floods and accelerates the natural rate of sedimentation. Sand mine pits probably lower floods within THEIR local area by a small amount. No argument there.

However, when the West Fork of the San Jacinto River captures the pits (as it has done repeatedly), large volumes of sediment can be swept downstream and contribute to flooding elsewhere. The professional engineer that certified the development plans of these sand mines should have anticipated this, especially downstream of the Lake Conroe Dam.

Google Earth shows many instances of river capture and not just in Harvey. Much smaller floods have captured pits, too. These repeated captures are caused by building mines in floodways, excavating too close to the river, and using dikes/levees that are insufficient to withstand the volume of floodwaters – especially when the San Jacinto River Authority releases water from the Lake Conroe Dam. Additionally, mines sometimes increase the height of their levees by piling up sand in a way that constricts the floodway.

As You Review these Regulations…

I reviewed these regulations as I thought about the thousands of homes and businesses flooded downstream from the mines, partially as a result of massive sand bars that that blocked drainage ditches and the river itself (see photo above).

Clearly, not all of that sand came from mines, but some did. I flashed on the City Sewage Facility that was inundated, the loss of six buildings at Kingwood College that were contaminated by that sewage, and the $70 million taxpayers will spend on a dredging project…that doesn’t even address the biggest sand blockage on the river.

The most obvious areas to explore for permit violations include:

Article IV

  • Sec (B)(2) Ensure that the proposed … site … will be reasonably safe from flooding (page 15)
  • Sec (C)(2)(c)  Consider the danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others. (Page 17)
  • Sec (C)(2)(f) Consider the costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions including maintenance and repair of streets and bridges, and public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems. (Page 17)
  • Sec (C)(2)(g) Consider the expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site. (Page 17)
  • Sec (C)(2)(c) Permits should be denied if there’s a danger that materials could be swept onto other lands to the injury of others. (Page 17)
  • Sec (D)(2)(b) Variances shall not result in increased flood heights, threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create a nuisance or victimize the public. (Page 18)
  • Sec (D)(10) Any person or persons aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners Court may appeal such decision in a court of competent jurisdiction. (Page 19)

Article V

  • Sec (A)(2) All improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage. (Page 21)
  • Sec (A)(8) An engineer must certify that the proposed excavation will have no adverse impact to the drainage on, from or through adjacent properties. (Page 21)

Article VI

  • Sec (E)(1) Permits can be revoked in cases where there has been a false statement or misrepresentation. (Page 27)
  • Sec (E)(5) Violators can be fined $100 per day for each violation. (One of those dikes remained open for 3 years and another for 8!) (Page 28)
  • Sec (E)(7) A permit holder in violation may be forced to restore property to pre-existing conditions. (Page 28)
To read the complete regulations, click here. As stated on pg 26,  SECTION F. EXEMPTIONS (5)  Commercial mining and dredging are not exempt and must have a professional engineer certify the development plans of sand mines. Therefore, one would expect that the engineer would have evaluated sediment transport from the mines and the potentially increased risk of downstream flooding – especially downstream of the Lake Conroe Dam.
As always, these are my opinions on matters of public policy, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP statutes of the great State of Texas.
Posted August 6, 2018 by Bob Rehak
342 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Montgomery County, Harris County Flood Control and SJRA Working on Funding Agreement for Flood Control

(April 17, 2018) Montgomery County, Harris County Flood Control District and the San Jacinto River Authority are finalizing an agreement for a $2.5 million study that will improve the region’s flood notification capabilities and identify specific flood control projects.

The Harris County Flood Control District submitted the grant application to the Texas Division of Emergency Management on April 16th.

Thanks to Gov. Greg Abbott, up to $1.875 million in federal funds could be allocated for the study if the grant is awarded through FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. It requires a 25 percent match; if the full $2.5 million is received, the local match would be $625,000. Montgomery county, SJRA and Harris County Flood Control would share that matching cost.

“With this study we will gain a better knowledge of our Montgomery County streams and watersheds, a more complete flood warning system, and the ability to identify specific projects that could reduce the risk of flooding in the future,” Montgomery County Judge Craig Doyal said.

San Jacinto River Watershed Flow Rates

Where Water Came From During Harvey

The goals of the study are to:

  • Prepare a plan to integrate flood warning information from HCFCD, SJRA, MCO, and COH into a shared system that can be utilized by all parties to make informed decisions; it includes expanding the flood warning system network.
  • Coordinate with flood responders including Harris County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Montgomery County OEM, SJRA, City of Houston, and potentially others, such as the Harris County Flood Control District’s Hydrologic Operations Department, to develop a consistent communications protocol and action plan.
  • Recommend strategies to reduce flood risk and prepare a plan to implement the recommendations. Flood damage reduction options will likely include large regional detention ponds, channel improvements, vegetation and sedimentation removal, and property buy-outs.
  • Develop programs and/or materials that educate the decision makers and the public on the extent of the San Jacinto River Basin, general drainage patterns, maintenance programs for the San Jacinto River and its tributaries, potential flood reduction projects, and information relating to major flooding in the San Jacinto River watershed.

The proposed study would examine the entire San Jacinto River watershed, including Cypress Creek, Spring Creek, Peach Creek, Caney Creek, Lake Creek, the east and west forks of the San Jacinto and others. Review the scope of the project here.

If this cooperative project gets underway soon, it will mean that survey work on the East Fork of the San Jacinto can begin while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredges the West Fork between I-69 and Lake Houston. Concurrent work will speed up flood mitigation.

Posted April 20, 2018, 234 Days Since Hurricane Harvey