TexCom Toxic Wells- Danger to Your Drinking Water?

In 2011, TCEQ granted TexCom a permit to construct and use four injection wells to dispose of toxic material (paint thinners. petroleum distillates, oil water  emulsions, antifreeze, reactive sulfides, etc.)The 27-acre property bought by TexCom for this purpose is in the middle of the old Conroe Oil Field, which had a  large amount of drilling activity back in the 30’s and 40’s. Any toxic waste could infiltrate back through these old oil well casings into our water supply.Noone knows the condition of these old casings.

Directly below this property lie the 3 major aquifers that provide drinking water for all or part of 54 counties in South Texas. These are the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers. Toxic chemicals will be injected under high pressure into cavities below these precious freshwater sources.I believe this is a critical issue  for all of us to closely monitor oppose as it could have an adverse effect on the aquifers  providing our drinking water.

 

Other problems with this site include:

• The site is located in an established residential community, with homes bordering all sides of the property. Personal water wells for neighbors are as close as 300 feet from the proposed injection wells.
• There are over 500 abandoned oil wells in the mandated area of review on this property. Neither TexCom nor the TCEQ experts can determine how many, and to what extent these wells will be breached by toxic waste.
• Retired Oil & Gas employees have submitted depositions that some of these wells were known
  to have been improperly capped at the time they were abandoned.
• This property is known to contain significant underground fissures, which can provide access points for toxic leaks to migrate upwards and seep into our freshwater supplies.

The pemit for this work is currently tied up in litigation. Although access to the new property was initially blocked by the County, TexCom has used some devious means to acquire adjoining property so they can gain access to their property where these injections wells will be drilled.

The following is a summary of the current status from the web site of the citizen group fighting TCEQs approval of TexComs Injection Well Program (www.stopthetoxicwells.com).  Anyone interested can sign up on this web site to receive periodic status updates. The information is consistent with what J.D. Lambright presented to the League of Women's Voters on Monday night, February 25.

THE FIGHT TO PROTECT OUR WATER, AIR, & PUBLIC SAFETY CONTINUES………

The political circus that took place at the January 26, 2011 TCEQ hearing was unquestionably a blatant disregard for the public health and safety of Texas residents. Two of the three TCEQ Commissioners failed to abide by the guiding principles which the TCEQ is expected to uphold when they voted to approve the TexCom Gulf Disposal commercial waste injection well permits in spite of the following factors:

• The Commissioners disregarded the recommendation of the State Office of Administrative Hearing (SOAH) judges to deny the permits as SOAH found that “TexCom did not establish that these injection wells are in the public interest, or that the injected waste will not resurface and contaminate Montgomery County’s water source”;
• The Commissioners would not admit or take into consideration a Railroad Commission ruling in which the RRC unanimously voted to rescind the “no harm letter” which had been previously granted without a full investigation of the site and the proposed injection operation. The RRC Commissioner’s subsequent decision to “rescind the no harm letter” was based on evidence provided in a SOAH hearing held on behalf of the RRC which determined that the proposed injection operation would have a negative impact on the mineral interests in the Conroe Oil field;
• TexCom falsified their permit application when they indicated that they owned the mineral interests on the site when in fact they do not;
• The rightful owner of the mineral interests (Sabine Royalty Trust) was not notified of the permit applications for the proposed injection operation by either TexCom or the TCEQ even though they are legally required to do so;
• The Commissioners did not address TexCom’s failure to complete pressure fall off testing as a required condition of the first TCEQ hearing held in November 2009.

In his published statement immediately following TCEQ’s approval of the permits, Representative Brandon Creighton clearly conveyed his position and that of all elected officials and citizens of the area: “TCEQ had ample scientific, legal and political justification to deny this well permit, but instead chose to advance business interests over the public. I am disgusted with the outcome of this exhaustive process. This effort is not over as far as I am concerned.” We agree wholeheartedly with Representative Creighton’s comments and assure you that we are NOT giving up the fight. To that end, the following actions are in the works:

Motions for Rehearing
Montgomery County Attorney, David Walker, filed a motion for rehearing with the TCEQ on behalf of Montgomery County and the City of Conroe, as did counsels representing the Individuals Protestants (Citizens Residents Oppose Wells) and Denbury Onshore, the current owner of the Conroe field. While the motions for rehearing are a necessary step in the process, it is no surprise that TCEQ has denied these requests.

State District Court Appeal
In May 2011, Montgomery County, the City of Conroe, the Individual Protestants, Denbury Onshore and Sabine Royalty Trust filed individual suits against the TCEQ in the 250th State District court seeking reversal of the TCEQ’s approval of commercial waste injection well permits issued to TexCom Gulf Disposal in February 2011. At an August 2011 hearing regarding our appeal before the Travis County State District Court, Judge John K. Dietz announced that he will preside over the disposal well lawsuit. In addition, the state Attorney General's Office agreed to the consolidation of the individual lawsuits filed by each of the aforementioned parties into one appeal. At that time, it was anticipated that the case could be under review by Judge Dietz by June 2012. However, in mid December 2011, Judge Dietz denied two requests by the TCEQ and TexCom to have Sabine Royalty Trust (owner of the mineral interests of the Conroe oil field) dismissed from the case. In response, TCEQ and TexCom filed an appeal in the Third Court of Appeals requesting reversal of Judge Dietz's ruling regarding the dismissal of Sabine Royalty Trust from the lawsuit pending in the District Court. Attorneys representing both sides of the case will deliver oral arguments regarding the admissibility of Sabine Royalty Trust before the Third Court of Appeals on November 28, 2012 in Austin, TX. It is anticipated that once the Third Court of Appeals rules on the Sabine Royalty Trust issue, the litigation pending in Travis County District Court will proceed.

Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT)
TCEQ's approval of the injection well permits was conditioned upon TexCom securing a driveway permit from TxDOT authorizing the relocation of the truck access driveway to the injection well site from its current location on Creighton Rd to FM 3083. In an attempt to satisfy that requirement, TexCom filed an application with TxDOT to build a driveway on FM 3083. However, on October 6, 2011, TxDOT notified TexCom that their driveway permit application had been denied as it "did not meet minimum spacing requirements". TexCom subsequently filed an appeal with TxDot requesting a variance to negate TxDOT’s spacing requirements. Before the variance was reviewed by TxDOT, Representative Brandon Creighton appeared before Montgomery County Commissioner’s Court regarding a statute within the Texas Administrative Code that offered a potential opportunity for Montgomery County to assume local control of the access permitting process for state highways within its jurisdiction. With Commissioner’s Court approval to proceed, the Montgomery County Attorney’s office filed for and was granted temporary road access control in January 2012 and TexCom subsequently withdrew its variance request.

In April 2012, however, a parcel of land with frontage along FM 3083 and which adjoins the TexCom property at the rear of the site, was sold to an Oklahoma businessman.While a permit authorizing the modification of the driveway to this adjoining site was issued, the County Attorney's office advises that the permit that was issued was for only a "residential driveway." What was  buildt ws  8" thick, rebar reinforced driveway. It was initially though that any change in use to accommodate commercial use of the site or commercial truck traffic to the site would require submission and approval of a different permit, although the County is now not certain of the County's right in this regard. The property has since been sold to TexCom.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Involvement
Throughout the contested case and TCEQ hearings, the EPA has closely followed the case and provided pertinent technical information to the TCEQ outlining the risks of contamination of the area aquifers. After the permits were approved, they again contacted the TCEQ restating their concerns regarding the potential for waste migration into the aquifer which ultimately could contaminate the drinking water supply. We continue to follow with the EPA to determine if they can intervene in any way to overturn the permit approvals. To date we are not aware if any further action has been initiated, but will continue to follow up with the EPA for further updates.

Is The Township's Retirement Package Too Rich?

In the Board's July 2012 Planning Session, questions were raised on whether the Township Two (2) for One (1), 7% match to its Retirement Plan (a 401K Defined Contribution Plan) was too "rich." This question has come up since then. It came up again at our February 21 Board Meeting.  In comparison to the private sector many might think this is the case. This view, on the surface, is reinforced if one looks at the Invesco 2011Survey- 58% of Small Plans support a 1 for 1 match of 6%; 38% support a 1 for 1 match of less than 6%.

However, I believe there are two things The Township Board had to consider in making any such judgement:

1) First, how do our employee benefits compare to the public sector ? -- 85% of our exempt employees are hired primarily from the public sector; 43% of our non-exempt employees come from this sector. Since 2009, the Township has routinely compared our employee salaries and benefits with a set of comparable "peer" public entities. We strive to stay somewhere in the middle and that is where we are today. We are neither the highest nor are we the lowest- we are in the middle.

2) Second, how does our total  compensation compare to the market, both public and private? It is well known, and it is well documented, that public sector salaries are about 12 % less than comparable positions in the private sector. Even when higher benefits are taken into account, local government compensation are still 6-8% below the private sector. Where comparable private sector information could be found in Houston , the Township did the comparison- salaries just by themselves were about 11.7% below the private sector.

Thus, I think the simple answer to this lingering question is:

1) We compensate our employees fairly-- somewhere around the median of where other public sector entities of our size and complexity compensate their employees

2) Our total compensation is not out of line with the private sector--it appears our salaries are lower than the private sector but our total compensation package, when all benefits are taken into account, are in line with private companies.

Based on this information and conclusion, the Township Board decided not to take any action on our retirement match, at least for 2013. The Township's outside consultants reviews our compensation and benefit package every year to make sure we pay our people competitively and are able to retain good people. I do not  see this changing.

Property Tax Abatements- A Deal or Not?

Since I was elected to the Board, I have found each time the Township Board grants a property tax abatement to a company I can pretty well expect to receive an increase in emails and comments about a “deal” being given to a company at the expense of the rest of us. An example is a recent email stating “Not that I'm trying to soak businesses, but seems like they could pay their "fair share" of the Woodlands Tax burden.” I do not object to the questioning; any question is a good one. But, I would like to try to give you my perspective as I do not think the Board is “throwing your money away.” On the contrary, I think these abatements are driven by the competitive market and will in fact generate, both in the short and long term, increased property tax and sales tax revenue which will help keep our taxes at a reasonable level. 

On December 17, 2012, Montgomery County approved a tax abatement agreement with Chicago Bridge & Iron (CB&I) for the property located at 2103 Research Forest Drive. CB&I is planning a major expansion to their campus, including the construction of a 150,000 square foot office building and a parking garage with a total cost of approximately $35 million. The facility will accommodate at least 200 FTEs and is anticipated for completion by December 31, 2014. This decision does not include any abatement on their existing property. At today’s Township property tax rate, I believe the new abatement will be about $131,000/year starting in 2015.  

The Township’s Tax Abatement Policy mirrors that of Montgomery County. We rely on J.R. Moore, County Tax Assessor, to do all the evaluation work, and a lot is involved, keying off his recommendation. After I was elected, I wanted to make sure that we were not just “blindly” following the County’s lead and there was substance behind any abatement decision. So, I met with Mr. Moore to understand our policy and what he does in evaluating all potential abatements in developing his recommendations. Personally, I found Mr. Moore leaves no stone uncovered in evaluating every abatement request. I thought he did, and continues to do, a very thorough job in making sure no one is giving anything away unnecessarily and considering the best interest of the tax payers. 

In total, I believe the level of Township property tax abatements is very low. CBI and other abatements granted this year, such as Anadarko, will not affect our 2013 property tax revenue, only in future years. For 2103, we are abating properties valued at about $52.5 million out of a total valuation on these properties of $82.6 Million (the total value of a property is seldom abated). The current abatements expire between 2013 and 2017. At our current tax rate of $.3173/$100, the value of the 2013 abatements is $166,715. To me this does not seem unreasonable given our total 2013 Property Tax Revenue is budgeted at $41.5 million on an assessed value of $13.9 billion. This means our 2013 abatements are only .4% of our total property tax revenue. 

It competing for new business, the County and Township have few financial incentives to offer new companies other than tax abatements. Cities on the other hand have Economic Development dollars (generated from a portion of their sales tax dollars). For example, in the case of Anadarko, I understand that their new Township building was approved by only 1 vote of their Board. Houston was offering them EDC cash incentives as well as tax abatements. We can only offer abatements. Whether abatement is granted and for how much depends on the level of jobs to be added to our community- - the income generated by the new jobs created must be large enough to more than offset the property tax revenue we give up. The evaluation by Mr. Moore is designed to make sure this is the case.

In today's Courier, it was reported that the Houston Galveston Area Council (HGAC) had accepted the new overpass at Grogan's Mill and Research Forest to go forward to the next evaluation phase. There will now be 30 days during which the public can weigh in and express their opinion on the project. Unfortunately, the proposed direct connector at Research and I-45 and the north bound braided ramp at 242 did not make this first cut. The three projects were proposed to alleviate the growing congestion at these locations. All these projects were proposed by the Woodlands Road Utility District #1 (WRUD #1), whom also agreed to provide the required matching funds.

Unfortunately, the City of Shenandoah continues to oppose the Grogan's Mill overpass in spite of the fact that none of this intersection is within their city limits. Their opposition flies in the face of the needs of the many Township employees and residents who use Grogan's Mill and Research Forest. We have a city of approximately 2000 people standing in the way of the needs of thousands of  our residents and their neighbors. Their opposition is also mystifying given that this project has been included in both the 2025 and 2035 Regional Transportation Plan prepared by HGAC. Currently the Grogan's Mill Project is rated a 31 on a scale of 100 but it is still classified as a project that is likely of being funded if properly supported.

The Township Ad Hoc Transportation Committee concluded that the opposition to the Grogan's Mill Project is without merit and represents an unwarranted intrusion into the Township's business. At the Township Board Meeting on Thursday, February 21, the Committee will propose that the Township Board 1) approve a resolution firmly in support of the Grogan's Mill Project and a Township representative speak in public at the March HGAC TPC Meeting to this effect, 2) solicit additional support for the project from our business and residential community, 3)  request Commissioner Noack to speak at HGAC in support for the project and 4) request the WRUD #1 to increase their matching fund commitment.

The Township is continuing it's discussions with the City of Shenandoah in an effort to get them to back off their unjustified opposition to this project. However, as evidenced by today's newspaper article obtaining their support for the project may not be easy. Getting this project approved and overcoming the City of Shenandoah's opposition will not be easy. However, I believe we can prevail with the right level of public support.

A Regional Transportation Mobility Plan Is Critical To Managing our Future Growth.

In the February 6 Courier, it was reported the various governmental entities in South Montgomery County agreed to move forward with the development of a regional mobility plan under the guidance of H-GAC.  Over the next 30-60 days additional work will be done to get everyone together on an agreed to scope and direction for this study. 

Let me try to put the proposed study in context. What drives transportation funding in the 13 County H-GAC Area is the long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which forecast needs and priorities for the next 25 years. The RTP is then translated in a shorter term action plan, the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Without our own plan that is integrated into these regional plans, our ability to receive our fair share of monies available to help fund transportation improvements becomes very remote. In the past, Montgomery has suffered in this regard. The last County mobility plan I can find was done in 1985. How much has changed since then?  

To be successful in dealing with our future transportation needs requires:

1)    Collaboration with and support from  all of us in South County

2)    Development of a short and long term plan identifying “shovel ready projects”—plans that identify what needs to be done, when and at what cost.

3)    Access to federal and state funding and possessing the required matching funds

4)    A seat at the table where federal and state funding is allocated.

The proposed planning effort is the first step in putting these success factors in place. Unfortunately, there will be no “free lunch.” A plan will enable the taxpayers to better understand and put in context requests to support future bond elections and/or increases in their property taxes.

I was quoted in the Courier article that I thought transit improvements were as important as roadway improvements. My belief is based on a long term view over the next 10-20 years. Montgomery County and my community, The Woodlands, are experiencing, and will continue to experience, significant growth. This growth will not occur at the same rate or in the same areas as the past. Just consider the impact on South County of the Exxon-Mobile/ Springwoods development? Another example, The Woodlands is facing increased congestion in our Town Center and surrounding area. It is expected that more of our future growth will occur in our Town Center area rather than in our traditional neighborhoods. This is already a very congested area where traffic and parking is a bigger and bigger problem. Is the only solution just more cars and parking lots?  

We are also in the midst of absorbing a major change in how transit operations will be planned and managed in the future. Effective October 1, 2012, The City of Conroe and The Township are now direct recipients of FTA transit funding and have overall responsibility for overseeing the new Large Urban Transit Area.  We now have the management and fiscal responsibility for our transit programs. For example, The Township is now liable for any funding deficiency generated by our park and ride and other transit programs.  The Township is in the midst of determining how it can improve and sustain an effective park and operation at little to no cost to our taxpayers for the benefit of, not only the Woodlands, but South County. Up to now; the park and rides have paid for themselves. But we are faced with aging buses and rising operating costs. It appears this trend will only get worse over the next 2-3 years. We also need to look at the quality of the service and routes being offered. Should we be offering other Houston destination options? Should we offer a shuttle service to the new Exxon-Mobile location? Given the number of people coming into the Woodlands to work, should we provide a reverse commute option? Should we be offering an Intra- Woodlands Transit service? 

I realize there are significant roadway improvements that are urgently needed today. Some examples are improving access to I45, reducing congestion on Sawdust and Robinson Road, etc. To facilitate future development and the reduction of the congestion on 249, the County is already buying up right of way to connect 249 and Woodlands Parkway. What kind of traffic load will this add to Woodlands Parkway and 2978?  What increased congestion will the Grand Parkway bring to Gosling, Kuykendahl and FM 2978? These are all questions the proposed study can answer.

However, in our planning we have look beyond the problems of today. How many roads can we build or expand? In the long term, we also need to look at other mobility and transit options. Hopefully, the proposed study will be the first step in dealing with both aspects of our mobility challenge.

Cars, Bikes and Buses

This week there were two major articles in the Courier and Villager. One dealt with the expansion of Woodlands Parkway from four to six lanes (from East Panther Creek to Grogan’s mill) and the other dedicated bike lanes. There was also recent media coverage pertaining to a Goodman Study proposing a fourth park and ride location and a new transit garage at Six Pines and Lake Robbins.

This media coverage is just further evidence of what most of you already realize-transportation and mobility is a growing issue in our community. The Township Board decided last summer to become much more proactive in representing the interest of our community in dealing with this growing mobility problem. In December, 2012 the Board created an Ad Hoc Transportation Committee (Long, Tough and Bass) to provide advice on what actions the Township should take or support in this regard. The Committee has been hard at work since then.

The Board recognizes the Township does not have full control over some aspects of our transportation system. The principal examples are our roadways and adjoining right of ways, all of which fall under the County. However, it is clear that to make any progress requires four things:

1)    Collaboration with other organizations

2)    A plan that identifies what needs to be done and when

3)    Funding

4)    A seat at the table where federal and state funding is allocated.

Most of our major road improvements within The Woodlands have been funded by the Woodlands Road Utility District #1 which is funded solely by the commercial property owners. Hopefully, under the leadership of Commissioner Noack the County will provide greater leadership in developing that portion of a plan dealing with our roadway, bike lanes and traffic noise needs.

But even with its help transit will still fall under the purview of the Township and not the County. Effective October 1, 2012, The Township is now a direct recipient of FTA transit funding rather than the Brazos Transit District. This means we have the management and fiscal responsibility for transit programs in our area. In addition, we share with the City of Conroe the management responsibility for the new Large Urban Transit Area covering South Montgomery County. The downside is the Township is now liable for any funding deficiency generated by our park and ride and other transit programs, such as the Water Cruisers and the Trolleys.  

The Township has a significant challenge before it, one I believe we are more than up to. We have to lead and collaborate in addressing many areas of concern:

1)    How will changes in future land use affect our future transportation needs? Population growth will not occur at the same rate or in the same areas as it has in the past- just consider the Exxon-Mobile/ Springwoods development. How will we deal with increased congestion, especially in the Town Center and surrounding area? The Developer expects that they will add significant residential population in the Town Center as it is built out. This is already a very congested area where traffic and parking is a bigger and bigger problem.

2)    How can we improve and sustain an effective park and operation at little to no cost to our taxpayers. This has been the case up to now; the park and rides have paid for themselves. But we are faced with aging buses and rising operating costs and it appears this trend will only get worse over the next 2-3 years. We also need to look at the quality of the service and routes being offered. Should we be offering other Houston destination options? Should we offer a shuttle service to the new Exxon-Mobile location? Given the number of people coming into the Woodlands to work, should we provide a reverse commute option? Should we be offering an Intra-Woodlands Transit service?

3)    How will the County deal with growing traffic noise pollution?

4)    How can access from and to I45 and the new Grand Parkway be improved? Would a grade separation at Six Pines and Woodlands Parkway be a feasible option in reducing the back up on the flyover? What will be the impact of the Grand Parkway on traffic on Gosling and Kuykendahl traffic? The bridges are already congested and need to be expanded.

5)    How should we deal with constructing a “real” bike lane system that will serve cyclist, whether they are leisure, commuter or competitive bikers?

I am sure each of you could add to this list. In fact the above is only a sample of questions for which the Transportation Committee and the Board must seek answers. In the near future, I expect that the Transportation Committee will be proposing to the Board undertaking and/or participating in several transit and engineering studies to address and provide answers and options to these sorts of questions. These studies will require that we collaborate with the County and neighboring cities. Ultimately this initial planning work will lead to the formation of a multiyear transportation plan that will help in managing our growth and maintain the quality of life that attracted all of us to “live and work in the woods.”