Are Ponds Impervious Area?

[LD1]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[dodge man]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[bcp]

Maybe from an aerial photo the pond looks like a paved area.

Bruce

 

[SPYDERLK]

Maybe from an aerial photo the pond looks like a paved area.

Bruce

Good point.
larry