Are Ponds Impervious Area?

heitjer · May 29, 2011

All,
I like to see what kind of regulations are across the country for ponds and if they are considered "impervious" area with regards to drainage regulations. Here is some background on the question:

In November last year the City of Houston voted for a drainage fee of 0.032 $/sqft (or 0.026 for ditch drainage) and the bill just arrived. On my 6.2 acres I was assessed to have 71,000 sqft (~ 2acres) of impervious area. After the initial sticker shock ($2,300/year) I found out that my pond (~3/4 acre) and major portions of my pasture (~1 acre, shale soil) are considered impervious. I can probably get the pasture thing sorted out but the pond is considered "impervious". Please let me know if similar considerations are in your areas/regions. I am trying to build a knowledge base for my apealing process.

If someone knows a certified Civil Engineer in the Houston area that is able to help me with a drainage assessment I would like to get contact information via PM please.

*heitjer*

piller · May 29, 2011

Wow is about all I can say. I'm not qualified to help you with the appeal process but will watch this thread to see what I can learn.

It seems that the drainage rule would be in effect to prevent runoff from your property, hardscape type areas, impervious areas, that would load the local storm drain system and increase flooding potential.

I hope you can get the pasture area re-classified. Of course it depends on the pasture, some pasture is like a meadow and capable of absorbing a lot of water and other pasture can be like a parking lot.

Whenever I see a new shopping center or other commercial project there is usually a retaining pond type area to catch the runoff water, slow down the release of water, and filter the water. However, these pond areas are normally empty and are able to absorb and collect a considerable volume of water before they overflow.

I think that if your pond is full it has no ability to hold more water and it would be correct to say that it is an impervious area. Any water from a storm that falls or flows into a full pond will immediately overflow and leave the pond. Perhaps you could document that your pond is not full and is capable of collecting some volume of water from a storm and use that information in your appeal.

scgargoyle · May 29, 2011

It really amazes me the clever ways they find to separate us from our money! Here in FL, they put in retention ponds to handle run-off. There has to be X amount of pond area for a given amount of impervious area, such as pavement or buildings. This is done up-front, during construction, and then that's it- no further assessments. I would think that if the remaining area of your land could be shown to handle the run-off from the impervious areas, then you're covered; your property isn't burdening anybody. The impervious shale has always been there, as has the pond, possibly. Shouldn't God be paying the assessment, and not you? Sheesh!

Our property in SC is only required to not have any uncontrolled run-off. As long as I have vegetation to control erosion, and silt fences to control it during construction, I'm good to go.

wedge40 · May 29, 2011

I hate to point out the irony to the op. But isn't most of Texas in a drought?

Wedge

Rustyiron · May 29, 2011

It sounds like the City of Houston's governing board's brains are friggin impervious to rational thought! Maybe you can charge them for the water that your pond collects during a storm? Unreal!

heitjer · May 29, 2011

wedge40 said:
I hate to point out the irony to the op. But isn't most of Texas in a drought?
Wedge

Quite right - my pond has lost about 2 ft of water from "normal" which is approx 1 ft below overflow tube, given the size of it of approx 30,000 sqft this makes a nice volume that I can retain in case it will ever rain again.

I am just glad that it is 24 ft deep and still ways to go before my fish fry in the heat....

dodge man · May 31, 2011

I work for an engineering firm and we design detention basins. Maybe with a little bit of engineering, you could show that your pond acts as a detention basin and you could reduce that fee.

bikerdib · May 31, 2011

What kills me is they excluded churches from the fee. There seems to be a Church (or a new one going up) on every corner, with large buildings and huge parking lots. I have nothing against anyone that wishes to worship in a church but I think it's time they start pulling some of their own weight in maintaining the areas around them. Churches are some of the richest organizations in the world.

NON-PROFIT?????

LD1 · May 31, 2011

I have never even heard of something like that.

I am pretty sure we dont have anything like that here, but I could be wrong. I live in the rural sticks, we dont even have any storm drains out here.

But If I am understanding you correctly, you live near an urban area, and water runs off of your property into storm drains, and they are wanting to charge you for the amount of run-off they estimate your property generates and sends to said storm drains??? Is that correct???

If it is, I would not be a happy camper either. Werent storm drains designed to handle storm water that runs off of parking lots that cannot absorb water?? And also to control flodding for those that live in flood zones??? Why Should you have to foot the bill? Didnt mother nature build us all sorts of rivers to handle the water??? If they chose to build storm drains so they could build houses where it floods, shouldnt THEY be the ones footing the bill? Not you?

johnrex62 · May 31, 2011

LD1 said:
I have never even heard of something like that.

I am pretty sure we dont have anything like that here, but I could be wrong. I live in the rural sticks, we dont even have any storm drains out here.

But If I am understanding you correctly, you live near an urban area, and water runs off of your property into storm drains, and they are wanting to charge you for the amount of run-off they estimate your property generates and sends to said storm drains??? Is that correct???

If it is, I would not be a happy camper either. Werent storm drains designed to handle storm water that runs off of parking lots that cannot absorb water?? And also to control flodding for those that live in flood zones??? Why Should you have to foot the bill? Didnt mother nature build us all sorts of rivers to handle the water??? If they chose to build storm drains so they could build houses where it floods, shouldnt THEY be the ones footing the bill? Not you?

As much as I dislike the idea of charging a fee for services based on an unsubstantiated quantity such as expected runoff and believe the base taxes should cover services like flood control, your logic on who should foot the bill is not all it should be.

First, he decided where to live not anyone else. The City/State did not mandate his residential location.

Second, Who is the THEY you feel should be paying for his safety from floods? I suspect it is the government, which is US, not THEY.

Third, while correct about the design and purpose of storm drains, you miss the mark on Rivers. They were designed to channel runoff from unimproved lands. We cannot expect them to handle our increased requirements without assistance or even accommodation from our designs.

I agree that it is an abuse of power to wrest our monies away on the pretext of public safety by allocating the cost of such protection to specific individuals through the use of fuzzy logic such as this. If it is a true public safety service, the the entire public should foot the bill. If it is a targeted safety service then it should be paid for by the targeted community evenly. In areas I am familiar with, the common practice is to setup flood control districts and charge a tax rate to all property owners. It is based on property value, which is not ideal but does tend to weight the allocation based on amount of property at the expense of owners of more valuable property. At least every property owner is charged to some degree by the amount of land they own or the value of the improvements they protect rather than some immeasurable and unsubstantiable factor.

LD1 · May 31, 2011

johnrex62 said:
As much as I dislike the idea of charging a fee for services based on an unsubstantiated quantity such as expected runoff and believe the base taxes should cover services like flood control, your logic on who should foot the bill is not all it should be.

First, he decided where to live not anyone else. The City/State did not mandate his residential location.

Second, Who is the THEY you feel should be paying for his safety from floods? I suspect it is the government, which is US, not THEY.

Third, while correct about the design and purpose of storm drains, you miss the mark on Rivers. They were designed to channel runoff from unimproved lands. We cannot expect them to handle our increased requirements without assistance or even accommodation from our designs.

I agree that it is an abuse of power to wrest our monies away on the pretext of public safety by allocating the cost of such protection to specific individuals through the use of fuzzy logic such as this. If it is a true public safety service, the the entire public should foot the bill. If it is a targeted safety service then it should be paid for by the targeted community evenly. In areas I am familiar with, the common practice is to setup flood control districts and charge a tax rate to all property owners. It is based on property value, which is not ideal but does tend to weight the allocation based on amount of property at the expense of owners of more valuable property. At least every property owner is charged to some degree by the amount of land they own or the value of the improvements they protect rather than some immeasurable and unsubstantiable factor.

My simple point is...

WHO benefits from the storm drains??

Whomever THEY are should be the ones footing the bill.

It appears to me in the context of the OP, that HE is getting no benefit at all from the stormdrains. And if he is, and IF those drains prevent his land from flooding, then absolutly he should pay. But I get the feeling that he is NOT benefiting from them. Rather the water that runs off his land is causing OTHERS problems, thus the storm drains were created, and now they are charging him for his runoff.

And also, yes HE chose where he lives, BUT there was NO issue before. He said that JUST last november is when this came about when the city of houston passed this.

A lot of assumptions here, but I am assuming that he does not actually live in houston, rather just outside houston. And NOW a measure THEY passed is affecting him. And if it is anything like here, if he isnt actually inthe corp. limits of houston, he didnt have a vote or say on the matter. Taxation without representation?

Again, a lot of assumptions on my part here. Some clarification from the OP is much needed in this regard.

johnrex62 · May 31, 2011

LD1 said:
My simple point is...

WHO benefits from the storm drains??

Whomever THEY are should be the ones footing the bill.

Everyone benefits from the storm drains. People downstream benefit from less run off and less flooding. People upstream benefit from faster exiting of run off and less flood water backup, reducing the amount of standing water and faster drying afterwards. THEY should be everyone.

LD1 said:
It appears to me in the context of the OP, that HE is getting no benefit at all from the stormdrains. And if he is, and IF those drains prevent his land from flooding, then absolutly he should pay. But I get the feeling that he is NOT benefiting from them. Rather the water that runs off his land is causing OTHERS problems, thus the storm drains were created, and now they are charging him for his runoff.

Not only does he benefit from the reduction of higher water downstream of him allowing his run off water to exit the property, he benefits by having the drains carry off the water upstream from him so that it does not impact his property as well. He benefits from avoidance of other run off as well as distribution of his own. He is not the only beneficiary though, as mentioned before.

LD1 said:
And also, yes HE chose where he lives, BUT there was NO issue before. He said that JUST last november is when this came about when the city of houston passed this.

A lot of assumptions here, but I am assuming that he does not actually live in houston, rather just outside houston. And NOW a measure THEY passed is affecting him. And if it is anything like here, if he isnt actually inthe corp. limits of houston, he didnt have a vote or say on the matter. Taxation without representation?

Again, a lot of assumptions on my part here. Some clarification from the OP is much needed in this regard.

Last November is when the assessment was passed. The water has been running for thousands of years and we don't know when the drainage areas were modified. Just because his property is not under 4 feet of water after a spring shower does not mean there was not a problem prior to the drainage system installation or that the growth of the area would not have created a problem if the drainage system were not in place.

As to the role the city of Houston has in this, The city is not able to pass levy on any property owner outside of it's taxing jurisdiction. It's jurisdiction ends at the city limits. So if the city passed this fee, he must live within the city limits. If he lives outside of the city limits, then the fee must be assessed by a special taxing district setup by the state or the county in which he lives. In any case there is no taxation without representation because the authority to levy tax in Texas is restricted to those taxing authorities in which he resides. Even those special tax districts that have appointed leadership and no directly elected agents are governed by elected officials, even if those officials seldom accept responsibilty or blame for their appointments actvities.

EE_Bota · May 31, 2011

I think they want money, figured he had it or could get it, and they are hereby demanding it.

dodge man · Jun 1, 2011

Think about how this works. Say you build a house, and it has a low area. You build a driveway over it and put in a 18 inch culvert, and everything is fine and dandy. 20 years later, a Walmart, Lowes, and Home Depot build up stream from you on what was farm ground. All of a sudden that 18 inch culvert needs to be a 48 inch culvert. That isn't your fault, its all the big box stores that caused the problem. Most places make the big box stores put in detention basins so the runoff is no greater than it was before they built. Than your 18 inch culvert is still fine and dandy and you can't tell the difference when it rains.

I'm just guessing here, but where the OP lives, they decided they have a storm water problem, and its not just on one area but a city wide problem. They don't have the money to do anything about it, so they came up with a new way to tax people. Its really just another way to get into your pockets.

SPYDERLK · Jun 1, 2011

johnrex62 said:
As much as I dislike the idea of charging a fee for services based on an unsubstantiated quantity such as expected runoff and believe the base taxes should cover services like flood control, your logic on who should foot the bill is not all it should be.

First, he decided where to live not anyone else. The City/State did not mandate his residential location.

Second, Who is the THEY you feel should be paying for his safety from floods? I suspect it is the government, which is US, not THEY.

Third, while correct about the design and purpose of storm drains, you miss the mark on Rivers. They were designed to channel runoff from unimproved lands. We cannot expect them to handle our increased requirements without assistance or even accommodation from our designs.

I agree that it is an abuse of power to wrest our monies away on the pretext of public safety by allocating the cost of such protection to specific individuals through the use of fuzzy logic such as this. If it is a true public safety service, the the entire public should foot the bill. If it is a targeted safety service then it should be paid for by the targeted community evenly. In areas I am familiar with, the common practice is to setup flood control districts and charge a tax rate to all property owners. It is based on property value, which is not ideal but does tend to weight the allocation based on amount of property at the expense of owners of more valuable property. At least every property owner is charged to some degree by the amount of land they own or the value of the improvements they protect rather than some immeasurable and unsubstantiable factor.

It is you who are missing the point, and from what I can tell you continue in subsequent posts. The OP has the "unimproved" land. Actually, it is improved in its ability to absorb and/or retain water by virtue of agricultural use. His property is a benefit to the water table and to general water management in the area. This should entitle him to a credit not a bill.
larry

johnrex62 · Jun 1, 2011

SPYDERLK said:
It is you who are missing the point, and from what I can tell you continue in subsequent posts. The OP has the "unimproved" land. Actually, it is improved in its ability to absorb and/or retain water by virtue of agricultural use. His property is a benefit to the water table and to general water management in the area. This should entitle him to a credit not a bill.
larry

What point am I missing? How useful is ag land when it is underwater? How much more valuable does it become when flood waters wash it downstream and nothing is left but gullies and washes?

Even without a single building on the property it is still protected by storm drains. The entire Houston area is built on swamps and bayous. Rains routinely flood the area. Without storm drains even his ag land might be unusable a large part of the year.

I will agree that his ag useage has increased it's carry capacity, but that does not negate the inherent nature of the area to flood and become swamp without improved drainage. To the extent that drainage improvements benefit everyone, including the OP, their cost should be shouldered by everyone as well.

SPYDERLK · Jun 1, 2011

johnrex62 said:
The entire Houston area is built on swamps and bayous. Rains routinely flood the area. Without storm drains even his ag land might be unusable a large part of the year.

I would have to let the OP speak to this. To me, a 24' deep pond contradicts the nature of swamp land.
larry

heitjer · Jun 1, 2011

SPYDERLK said:
His property is a benefit to the water table and to general water management in the area. This should entitle him to a credit not a bill.
larry

Larry,
that how I would like to see it, my pond can take at least 1 ft of water before it even overflows from a rain.

Most of my property drains towards the pond, some of the lower pasture goes to a naturally gully. This is how water drained for hundreds of years. The only change to the natural drainage was the pond which was put in place 20 years ago by digging out the gully. So the overflow from the pond goes into the gully as well. From there is goes off my property. Approximately 30 yards through a neighbors property and then into Luce Bayou - a natural Bayou - which leads into Lake Houston. Nothing here is maintained by the City of Houston although I understand that the Bayou and the Lake Houston are considered part of Houston's water management.

The street - an unmaintained gravel road - is the highest point of the property. I can not drain towards the street for two reasons. I can not make the water flow uphill and the ditch at the street is unmaintained and will eventually end up in my property again.

I have not voted for this payment and I have yet to meet one person who did. But I fully agree with the payment because it was the majority that voted for it.

What I do not agree with is the accessed "impervious area". It is calculated by a computer based on areal photographs as 71,000 sqft. When I take out the the pond and the pasture I have only 6700 sqft of driveways, shipping containers and one garage. Thats it!

My plan is to build a house out there someday. But before I do this I like to have a Civil Engineer calculate and certify the detention pond size so I can claim a exemption from this fee.