CAN FLOOD DISTRICT DEPEND ON OTHER ENTITIES' GOODWILL?

(In the map on top, the area in blue is the area that will be in the flood district's jurisdiction and is  not part of existing drainage and irrigation districts. The district can only tax the blue areas and come to agreements (Memoranda of Understanding, MOUs) with the existing districts to implement a yet-to-be formulated countywide flood prevention plan.)
                                                                                                                                                                   By Juan Montoya

Every time that there was a "flooding event" in Cameron County, officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency would ask whether there had been any progress made in establishing a countywide flood system to prevent future disasters.

In every case, we (I used to work as a supervisor for Cameron County) would have to tell them "no," that the county was in the process of getting all the players together to try to get one together.

We would explain that there were several drainage and irrigation districts that had to collaborate to make a drainage scheme to prevent flooding that would work. In every case, after the federal assistance surveys were completed, they would recommend that a drainage plan be implemented.

That was in the early 1980s. We are now in the second decade of the 2000s and there is still no cohesive flood prevention plan in place yet. There are four taxing drainage districts in place (See graphic. Click to enlarge.) And there are also several irrigation districts, some of which do not tax. However, some of these charge property owners based on their water usage.

(The residents within the existing drainage districts will not be taxed by the flood district once a tax rate election is held.)

As a result, a comprehensive flood prevention plan has never been drawn up, less never mind implemented, in the county. Any drainage that happens after a flooding event is carried in the various ditches of the existing drainage districts that are linked hodge-podge with the irrigation ditches.

When the water began filling the ditches of Drainage District #5 which covers northwest Harlingen during the flooding early July flooding in Palm Valley and the surrounding area, the director of the district began releasing water into the surrounding irrigation ditch systems and resulted in the inundation of Santa Rosa.

Alan Moore, the General Manager for Cameron County Drainage District Number 5,  which oversees drainage canals in cities like Palm Valley, says they did everything to keep ditches clean.

"Our drainage ditches are the lowest places around. If our ditch is full, there is no place for the water to go," said Moore.

Moore says nearby canals from another drainage districts (Number 3) that go to the floodway were overflowing into his district, causing flooding in Palm Valley.

The brouhaha that erupted in Santa Rosa over flooding was a result of such a fragmented response.

Concurrently, as Cameron County residents were driven from their homes and clamored for an answer to the flooding, State Rep. Alex Dominguez had just returned from the legislative session. Among the bills passed was HB 4726 which established a countywide flood district. (See graphic on top. Click to enlarge).

Ideally, this flood district would encompass the entire county. But as the saying goes, sausage-making is not without some tweaking, especially from other districts in the county which would be affected by the operations of a countywide taxing entity.

According to the House Research Organization bill digest, concerned parties who spoke for and against the bill agreed that "Cameron County currently lacks integrated flood mitigation infrastructure and there are gaps within the county between the jurisdiction of local drainage districts.

"As Cameron County is also in a low-lying area prone to flooding, it has been suggested that the county would benefit from the creation of a flood control district."

The bill passed the House an Senate with the required two-third votes (House: 111 yeas, 30 nays, and two present not voting. Senate: 29 yeas, 2 nays) which allows it to exercise the power of eminent domain. However, Section 7816.0104 the district "does not include territory that is in a drainage district or irrigation district." To annex land inside existing districts, the district is required to obtain their approval.

In other words, the power of the directors of the flood district (the county commissioners) cannot tax or force the resident living in existing drainage or irrigation districts or force them to allow it to obtain land inside their jurisdiction. The two districts with the largest tax base are District #1 (northeast Brownsville up to Los Fresnos and District #3, from the river north to the Cameron-Willacy county line.)

The new district, however, will include all of South Pare Island and the Port of Brownsville and will be supported through a property tax to be set for an election.

Dominguez is confident that the board members and directors of the existing drainage districts will cooperate with the new district since the board of directors will be the sitting county commissioners and the county judge even though Sonia Lambert and Wayne Halbert of Drainage District #3, representatives for Harlingen Irrigation District #1, and Moore, of Drainage District #5 spoke against the bill.

Will the existing districts play ball with the new flood district and alter their drainage schemes for the greater good? Or will there be the usual territorial stakeouts that have created the situation we are currently facing?