LEAGUE CITY – A public disagreement between League City and the Galveston County Consolidated Drainage District is growing as officials dispute taxation, drainage maintenance responsibilities and how the two entities should work together to reduce flooding.

Both sides say reducing flooding is a priority, but they disagree over who should be responsible for providing certain drainage services in western League City.

League City Mayor Nick Long argues residents within the drainage district are effectively paying twice for drainage services — once through city taxes and again through taxes paid to the Galveston County Consolidated Drainage District.

“Fundamentally the disagreement comes down to the fact that some people in League City are being double taxed,” Long said. “The whole city pays the standard tax rate… and this one small subset on the far west side of League City is paying not only the League City tax rate, they’re also paying into the Galveston County Consolidated Drainage District, really for duplicative services.”

The drainage district disputes the characterization that residents are paying twice for the same service.

Rusty Burkett, representing the district, said cities and drainage districts have different responsibilities. According to Burkett, cities typically handle neighborhood drainage systems that carry water to larger waterways, while the district maintains waterways that move stormwater away from populated areas and toward the bay.

“Cities usually bring the water to drainage districts,” Burkett said. “So we’re responsible for maintaining the waterways that actually take the water away from the area and out towards the bay.”

Long said League City wants to assume responsibility for drainage within its city limits and has offered to acquire district infrastructure.

“We have offered to buy the infrastructure from them,” Long said. “We’ve offered to absorb the services and absorb the cost of maintenance in order to get that portion of League City out of the drainage district and stop the unfair double taxation of those citizens.”

Burkett, however, said the district has not received a formal offer.

“The answer to that is no, we have not received any formal offer,” Burkett said.

Disagreement over drainage channel

The broader dispute recently escalated over maintenance of a drainage channel.

Long said the drainage district owns an easement in the area but stopped maintaining it, allowing vegetation, sediment and trees to restrict the flow of water.

“Because they hadn’t maintained it, it’s grown over, it’s silted in, there’s been trees growing inside of it,” Long said. “That easement was forming a dam and holding the water back and then flooding actually the League City citizens inside the district.”

The drainage district disputes that it is responsible for maintaining the area.

Burkett said district officials searched records dating back decades and found no documentation showing the district had accepted responsibility for the easement.

“We have searched all the documents back to the 1950s,” Burkett said. “There is no acceptance of any easement or maintenance of that area that we can find.”

League City says it obtained permission from the landowner before beginning work to clear the channel.

Despite the disagreement over jurisdiction, Burkett said the drainage district supports the work being performed by the city because district officials believe the area falls under League City’s responsibility.

“I think they’re doing good work,” Burkett said. “And I think they’re doing what they need to do.”

Questions over future cooperation

The disagreement extends beyond the drainage channel.

Long said communication between League City and the drainage district has deteriorated and criticized what he described as a lack of regional cooperation.

“It’s not good. It’s pretty poor,” Long said. “The drainage district doesn’t want to participate with us. They really don’t do projects with anybody but themselves.”

Burkett disputed that characterization and said the district is willing to cooperate with other governmental entities.

“We are going to participate in any projects with any city, county, state and federal entity,” Burkett said.

Despite their disagreements over taxes, jurisdiction and maintenance responsibilities, both sides indicated they are willing to continue working toward a resolution.

“We’re willing to find common ground,” Long said.

“Everybody wins in this deal if they work together,” Burkett said.

The two entities remain divided over several key issues, including responsibility for portions of the drainage system and whether League City’s drainage role should expand in the future.

For now, both sides say their ultimate goal remains reducing flooding and protecting residents.