Below information indicates that MUD 359 has constructed flood mitigation facilities for areas outside the District.


Master drainage plan for the Shadowlake development
The document dated December 29, 1993 defines the flood water mitigation requirements for an area of approximately 458 acres. The actual area comprises 363.47 acres of MUD 359 (82.71%) and 76.0 acres of out of district land owners (17.29%) for a total of 439.47 acres. The storage requirement for the approximately 458 acres was initially calculated as 429 acre-feet but was intended to be increased to 496 acre-feet as indicated in the response to Harris County Flood District review and comments in letter dated March 11, 1994 (included in the document starting on page 400). The increase in the storage volume appears have not been constructed leaving the total capacity as 425 acre-feet as indicated in the below email from the District Engineer.


The below listed observations can be made from the enclosed document PIR 30942 HCMUD 359 obtained from the archives of TCEQ.

9/9/1998 approval document. Paragraph G, Storm Drainage

The District’s engineer informed TNRCC that the request for funds for the D129-02-00 drainage channel included costs to construct services to out of district land owners. Hence TNRCC included the statement “Commission Rules allow funding the entire cost but the District should seek reimbursement from out of district land owners”.

10/13/1999 approval document. Paragraph B.3

According to the District’s engineer and the HCFCD’s engineer the District’s developer has spent a total of $3,675,621 for flood plain mitigation and conveyance facilities, amenity lake facilities, flood plain storage facilities, and storm water detention facilities. The approval of $2,544,282 in this request is the net excluding the cost for the amenity lake facilities. It includes the cost for the construction of flood water mitigation facilities for out of district areas.  MUD 359 is obligated to comply with the rules of TNRCC/TCEQ regardless if an instruction as per the 9/9/1998 document is included in the approval document or not.



MUD 359 has neglected to seek reimbursement for the bond issues approved on 4/2/1997, 9/9/1998 and 10/13/1999, which has caused financial damages to the tax payers. The enclosed estimate computes the outstanding amount exceeding $4,000,000 including compounding interest. A possible variation in the bond costs must be clarified as refinancing of bonds at a later stage may have occurred.
 Click on the below links to view attachments related to claiming compensation from outside areas
Bond approval documents by TRNCC  (predecessor to TCEQ)
The file is a compilation of the total of four approval memos where of the first dated June 21, 1996 does not include costs for flood control facilities but the following three dated April 4, 1997, September 9, 1998 and October 13, 1999 include costs for flood control facilities for the combined area of HCMUD 359 and areas outside the District.
Bond costs
Bonds were issued based on the approved amounts and the portions applicable for the joint flood control development identiifed.
Estimate of outstanding remuneration
This spreadsheet calculates the portion of the principal and interest for each year using the interest defined in the bond cost document. As the outside areas have benefitted from having the funds available throughout the years compounding interest costs have been calculated using the same interest rates. The cost attributed to the outside areas is using the acres as the key, which is the same basis as the requirements are defined. 


This document regulates the requirement for the issuance of bonds. Specific references applicable for recovering of funds spent of the development of facilities for areas outside the District is included in Section 293.44((8)(A)(iv) which states:

(8) A district shall not finance the pro rata share of oversized water, wastewater, or drainage facilities to serve areas outside the district unless:

(A) such oversizing:

                      (i) is required by or represents the minimum approvable design sizes prescribed by local governments or other regulatory agencies for such


        (ii) does not benefit out-of-district land owned by the developer;

                    (iii) does not benefit out-of-district land currently being developed by others; and

                    (iv) the district agrees to use its best efforts to recover such costs if a future user outside the district desires to use such capacity; or