Whisenant and Cobb tried to force it through without answering some very important questions
Com Whisenant
Update: Commissioner Whisenant called to say he has indeed requested the LCRA water initiative be placed again on the agenda for next week's county commissioners court meeting. In a brief phone interview, Whisenant said LCRA "would like to have $300 million" for its water/wastewater systems that serve a number of small communities in Central Texas, including a retail operation and pipeline network that serves an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 residents in north Hays County. "From the standpoint of my involvement, the reason I'm involved," Whisenant said, "is my hope to find some option to provide water at a reasonable cost . . . and if private industry does that it's almost certain it's going to cost somewhat more . . . the reason I took this on is to have a say in the ability of a public non-profit structure to provide possibly in the long run wholesale water. I don't want Hays County in the retail (water) business."
Whisenant said there are more details in Tuesday's agenda packet.
Other points the commissioner made:
– The reason for the creation of a coalition corporation is that it allows a single entity to be an effective bidder at a cost effective price. The cities of Bee Cave and Leander have already signed on (leaving Hays County the odd man out, for now). It takes three county or municipality members to sponsor a corporation eligible to make an offer, other than from a private sector interest.
– The "only financing in any of this through the (coalition) development corporation is revenues which means any bonds sold would be revenue-based, no ad valorem taxes would be supporting this, just the water users . . ."
– If the county's/coalition indicative bid is submitted, whoever decides to move further it could take up to four years before the ink is dry on a final deal . . . one of the reasons for all the confidentiality is "because of the bidding process," information such as the future water costs charged by the LCRA. The confidentiality of "sensitive" information is insisted upon by the legal and financial advisers and required by confidentiality agreements.
– Whisenant said he has not talked to any developer in regards to the county's interest in the LCRA system. There have been two independent water providers (IOU owners) that have expressed an interest in working with the coalition; any potential future agreements would have to be made through inter-local agreements.
– Whisenant said he doubted private investors would be interested in purchasing LCRA's systems, because "they're not producing enough revenue."
Note: As of 10:15 am, we're not sure if Pct. 4 Commissioner Ray Whisenant plans to request that the LCRA initiative be placed back on the commissioners court's agenda for its next meeting, Tuesday April 26. County Judge Bert Cobb's office, which prepares the agenda, wasn't sure either. We're waiting on a call back from the commissioner. Today is the deadline for agenda item requests, as it must be posted 72 hours before the court's meeting, per the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Mr. Brannon at sam_brannon@hotmail.com, to Commissioner Whisenant at ray.whisenant@co.hays.tx.us (512.858.7268) or click on the "comments" at the bottom of the story
As I explained in my last mail, LCRA is trying to sell a group of money-losing assets, including waterlines that serve 5,000-10,000 northern Hays County customers. Commissioners Conley and Whisenant are leading the charge, with support from Judge Cobb, in driving Hays County's participation in the purchase. At this point, it looks very misguided.The problem is: a) This could be very expensive and risky in the long term for Hays County, b) Hays County is already facing $357 million debt within the next 11 months, and c) Rather than making a reasonable case to justify why the county would even be interested in taking part in this purchase, Whisenant and Cobb tried to force it through without answering some very important questions. In fact, Judge Cobb did his best to limit the questions.
For more information on the background on this story, read my article and comment from Tuesday at: http://hayscountyroundup.blogspot.com/2011/04/lcras-white-elephant-water-properties.html
Update
Tuesday we left the Commissioners Court with a 2-2 vote (Conley was absent again) on the agenda item to create the "Coalition Corporation" to move forward on submitting an offer on the LCRA properties. With the 2-2 vote (Commissioners Jones and Ingalsbe voting No) the motion failed. That's good news.
Action
Many of you wrote our elected officials about this initiative. Thank you for doing so. I now ask you to write Commissioners Inglasbe (512.393.2243) and Jones (512.262.2091) thanking them for their support, and for taking no action. This was a very important vote and we need to show our support to them for doing the right thing for the people in their precincts, and for all of Hays County. An earnest letter of thanks would help a great deal.
Whisenant stated his intention to get this on the agenda again ASAP, and I suspect there will be pressure put on both Jones and Ingalsbe to help it along. Let them know we're on their side. I also suggest writing Judge Cobb (512.393.2205) and Commissioner Whisenant letting them know we expect better than what was offered in court on Tuesday.
Sam Brannon
Hays Citizens' Budget Project
50 comments:
In principle, it would be better for citizens if our water supplies remained in the public realm.
Privatization is rarely a good idea in the long run as the profit motive quickly becomes the dominant paradigm rather than good service, good water and good customer relations.
Just look at Aqua Texas in Woodcreek for an example of what happens when a private, for-profit company controls the water services for a community.
What needs to be examined here is WHY this water system is losing so much money and figure out a way to remedy that before buying it.
Our water supplies should not become the property of private companies, whether here or in China.
Privatization of formerly-public domains like roads and utilities is a national trend, but one which bodes poorly for the citizens. This trend needs to be reversed before We The People are no longer free to drive where we want or to drink water we can afford.
Although I am suspicious of Mr. Whisenant and Mr. Conley getting involved in owning water systems, these men will not always be in our county government. Thanks for small favors.
The Chinese have much better and
more reliable places to invest their money than in a bunch of money-losing water facilities in Texas -- for example, in their own
solar power technology, which is
currently much more heavily built
and marketed than the solar tech
of any other country. They are
forging way ahead of the U.S. in
renewable energy.
Dear "Whose,"
I totally agree that the public is
always best served when utilities are owned by public non-profit entities; that's the ideal.
But this proposed LCRA purchase/problem is of such magnitude and cost that I'm not convinced Hays County should dive into the water/wastewater business right now.
One thing I'm concerned about is the ability of the coalition members to make the payments on the revenue bonds. Initially there will be few customers relative to the amount of indebtedness (plus renovation/expansion costs). I realize that as the DS area grows, there will be more customers, providing more revenue, but even
then there is the concern that the cost of expanding services will not be covered by the added revenue.
As I understand it, this isn't about the water itself, but about the pipes that deliver it.
Again, these lines serve a small fraction of Hays County, which doesn't explain the county government's urgent interest.
The City of Dripping Springs, the two Beleterra MUDs and the Dripping Springs Water Supply could easily take the place of the county... and that would be far more logical. Why these entitites are not partnering with Bee Cave (pop 2000) and Leander (pop 26,000) is anybody's guess.
The primary objection for many is the secrecy and false urgency around this transaction. I submitted a list of questions I put together with others to be answered last week (see post linked in this article). Comm. Whisenant said in court on Tuesday that he would answer two of them in particular but no answers came before the vote was forced. Judge Cobb arbitrarily limited my and others' time to ask questions on this, which is completely unacceptable.
So much for Cobb's campaign promises of open and accountable government.
No, this doesn't smell good at all, and if this vote is put forward again before all questions are answered and all feedback considered then we'll know they're up to no-good.
This thing is still a pig-in-poke and taxpayers have no idea what they're really trying to sign us up for.
Couple that with the ongoing fear-mongering (potential buyers like Aqua-Texas, Chinese, etc) and it looks too much like the bankster bailout. This court has not yet earned the right to say, "Trust us."
This is local government at its worst.
My hunch is that certain members of Commissioners Court want Hays County to buy some of the LCRA properties only as a first step to
aid land developers. They can set a precedent by helping the many developers in the Dripping Springs area who already have platted subdivisions involving many thousands of homes. If Hays County is in possession of water lines serving Dripping Springs, then the next subdivision down the line can
logically ask for the water lines to be extended to it, going in any
direction from DS. Water can be
sent along 290 West to Henly, down
RR 12 to Wimberley, and so on.
Land developers, too, love the fact
that the LCRA water will be surface
water. No pesky HTGCD to deal with
for groundwater pumping permits.
I agree totally with Sam. It is what we don’t know which is likely to bite us in the butt. ‘Unimportant’ little things like the motive, the method of financing, possible assignments to other entities/partners, proposed rate structures, etc.
This is worse than a pig in a poke, it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The County has plenty on its plate right now without getting involved in this debacle. What’s next, a damn Bullet Train? I plan to be at the next CC meeting and I hope a lot of citizens will show up and fill the courtroom to overflowing.
Should this pass without citizen input and approval I will not ever again vote for an incumbent Commissioner. Are you listening Mr. Conley? Oh, and that applies to any other office you chose to run for.
Right! Whisenant and Conley are in league to get LCRA surface water for their patrons -- er, constituents. Whisenant will get Hays County to buy the LCRA lines at Dripping Springs for DS land
developers, and then Conley will
step in (at a decent interval later) and say Hays County should extend the lines down RR 12 to Wimberley (and maybe on to San Marcos) for his developer backers. That's why Whisenant and Conley are the lead guys on wrangling this LCRA beast through Commissioners Court. Ingalsbe and Jones are wisely voting no.
Standard & Poor recently downgraded its rating for U.S. debt
instruments. Our country is being viewed -- by a financial rater inside our country, mind you -- as
overextended in its debt burden and
sagging in revenue. Soon the Chinese (shudder...) will no longer
be willing to prop us up by buying our low-or-no-return Treasury bills
and bonds.
Likewise, Hays County has taken on
enormous bonded indebtedness. We
may soon face downgrading of our
financial status, too.
To extend the Grand Plan even
farther (and further)--
Probably Conley is trying to get as
much construction done as he can on RR 12 now, in preparation for the time that water lines will connect San Marcos and Wimberley. (Note the Hays County crews are installing large concrete pipes under and/or along RR 12 in places now. Those are not needed to "preserve right of way.") He got the grand parkway/bypass built out from the San Marcos end of the Whisenant-Conley Water Highway. Whisenant is responsible for securing the DS end. Then Conley will step in and have the DS to Wimberley segment built. And, voila, behold the Whisenant-Conley Water Highway all the way from east of Belterra to DS to Wimberley to San Marcos! And behold a bankrupt Hays County ... with our own very own Highway to Penury.
I know that the Federal govt. gives
grants to small cities and towns
for water and wastewater facilities-- especially in cases where failing or non-existent wastewater plants allow fouling of rivers and creeks. Have the cities
of Wimberley and Dripping Springs applied for any such grants?
Dripping Springs has a small wastewater service area, but I think the nearest LCRA wastewater
treatment plant (WTP)to DS is at Bee Cave. To the best of my knowledge Wimberley has only the small WTP which serves only Deer Creek Nursing Center. There is no LCRA WTP near Wimberley.
The city councils of both Wimberley and Dripping Springs should make building WTPs the
highest priority on their to-do lists.
"The largest lift station in [LCRA's West Travis] system is the
Bee Cave Regional Lift Station." (www.lcra.org)
Is Commissioner Whisenant hoping to utilize the Bee Cave WTP for
Dripping Springs? It seems rather far away. Miles of expensive pipeline. But the City of Bee Cave
is one of the members of Mr. Whisenant's "coalition."
Another worry regarding the proposed LCRA purchase:
The "CR" in "LCRA" is for the Colorado River. That river may not be a reliable source of surface water for northern Hays County in the future. Many communities draw water from it as it makes its way from Dawson County in West Texas to Lake Travis and beyond.
As an example, take the plight of the City of Leander (which, along with Bee Cave is one of the partners with Hays County in the
coalition). All of Leander's water
supply was coming from Lake Travis. With drought and falling lake levels, the intake lines from Lake Travis to Leander are getting
very close to the surface level of the lake. LCRA has been sending over 700,000 gallons of water per day from Cedar Park to Leander, but that contract is scheduled to end sometime in 2011. What will Leander do then for drinking water?
Northern Hays County is farther downstream from Leander (and from Austin-big water user). How do we
know we'll fare better than Leander did?
As David Crowell and others suggest, Hays County may buy from
LCRA a bunch of pipelines, with no
water to come through them.
Next week's agenda has been posted.
It seems Boss Conley is back in town and anxious to do business.
I can only imagine the tongue-lashing he gave the others for not moving projects along fast enough.
Hays County Commissioners Court meets again next Tuesday, April 26 at 9 a.m. on the 3rd floor of the
County Courthouse. Carpool.
This time the Coalition item is high up on the agenda. (It's #11, but the preceding 10 items are either pro forma or will go quickly.) The Item calls for a resolution forming the "Coalition of Central Texas Utilities Development Corporation." In the same fell swoop the item would go
ahead and approve Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Directors! None of those last three
subjects have been discussed with--
or even revealed to -- the public.
The Court is supposed to REPRESENT
the will of the people of Hays
County. How can they represent us
when they won't even give us the
information with which to form an
opinion?
There are supposedly 3 members of the Coalition: Hays County, City of Bee Cave, and City of Leander.
First of all, does "Hays County"
refer to Hays County Commissioners
Court, or Hays County Water and
Wastewater Authority, or ?
Then, in sessions of Comm. Court,
allusions have made to "20" or even "30" possible members.
Are any of the following members
of the Coalition:
City of Dripping Springs
DS Water Supply Corp
WCID #1 (Belterra)
WCID #2 (Belterra)
Hays County Development District #1
Hays County Development District #2
Hays County Water and Wastewater
Authority
Driftwood Economic...District (Salt
Lick)
Aqua Texas
City of Wimberley
Wimberley Water Supply Corp
Hays Caldwell PUA
City of San Marcos
City of Kyle
City of Buda
Canyon Regional Water Authority
Sunset Canyon Subdivision (currently a retail customer of LCRA)?
10 days ago I sent the following email to Comm. Whisenant:
"Can you send me a list of the "coalition" members involved in the LCRA purchase? When/where are they scheduled to meet next?"
He testified in court that day that there were 30+ members. The email was referred to County Attorney Mark Kennedy as an FOIA request.
This past Tuesday Pix Howell testified that there were 20 members of the "coalition
Today Kennedy's office responded with this:
"To our knowledge, the current members of the “coalition” are Bee Cave and Leander."
My response back to Kennedy's office:
"In the commissioner court meeting on 4/12, Commissioner Whisenant tesitifed that there were 30+ members of the "coalition".
In the commissioner court meeting on 4/19, Pix Howell testified there were 20 members, and Commissioner Whisenant testified to prior meetings of the "coalition", which was the other half of my question.
Have you contacted Commissioner Whisenant? What were his responses to you?"
It appears that either Comm. Whisenant and Pix Howell lying, or is our County Attorney lying.
I really want to know what all these guys are trying to hide from us...
We need to stop this.
There is a 314-page document called the "Hays County Water and
Wastewater Plan for the Portion of Hays County, Texas West of the IH-35 Corridor." It was prepared by HDR Engineering and was accepted by
the Hays County Commissioners Court in Feb. 2011. You can read any or all of it at
www.twdb.state.tx.us website.
A few observations and suggestions
from the Plan:
1. "In the areas west of IH-35 in Hays County, the growth in the suburban and rural areas is a major issue, placing considerable pressure on very limited local water resources." p.xi
2. "The ambience and sustainable picture desired by many in western
Hays County is likely only achievable if growth is significantly limited or channeled into certain development areas."
p.xiii
3. "To meaningfully address the management and depletion issues concerning the stressed Trinity
Aquifer in western Hays County, new
authority and adequate funding capability are needed for the Hays
Trinity Groundwater Conservation
District." p.xv
4. Dripping Springs p.2-11
a) "Currently, the City depends on the Dripping Springs Water Supply
Corp to provide water service in and around the city." [Note: DSWSC
is operating without a pumping permit from HTGCD.]
b) "It owns and operates a wastewater treatment facility and has a future role in retailing service to the nearby planned Headquarters at Barton Creek development."
5. City of Wimberley pp.2-11 & 2-12
"The city has no current direct role in the provision of water or
wastewater utility service. Local water is provided by the Wimberley
Water Supply Corp, and limited sewer service is provided by GBRA."
[Note: Does the City of Wimberley
have a contract with GBRA for sewer service?]
You can read the Interlocal Agreement, the Bylaws, etc. for the
Coalition on the Hays County website (www.co.hays.tx.us).Click
on "Weekly Agenda." The documents are part of the April 26 Agenda.
Commissioner Whisenant (Hays County) and Pix Howell (City of
Leander) would be two of the Board of Directors if the Coalition Resolution passes on April 26. And
it does seem that at present there
are only 3 members of the Coalition: Hays County, Leander, and Bee Cave. There can be up to 9
Board members if the Coalition gains membership.
Does the Coalition (Hays County,Bee
Cave, Leander) want to bid on all
32 LCRA facilities, or just on the
ones near those 3 members -- which
would be the Bee Cave Wastewater
plant, Sandy Creek Water (Leander;
water from Sandy Creek Arm of Lake
Travis),and a facility NW of Dripping Springs?
Sam, Sounds to me like there might have been 20 or 30 groups/municipalities contacted who have a vested interest in the outcome of this, but only 2 or 3 (If Hays county signs on) who are willing to move forward. Perhaps your follow up question to Mr. Kennedy should be "who are the other parties who have been contacted and not signed on and what were their reasons for not wanting to participate?"
As regards the following quote:
"
As David Crowell and others suggest, Hays County may buy from
LCRA a bunch of pipelines, with no
water to come through them."
Is there anything to prevent these pipelines from distributing GROUNDWATER?
And....are there any water rights from Lake Travis connected to these systems that are for sale?
Dear Inquiring Minds,
As to your first question, if you
mean is there physically anything
that would keep these pipelines from distributing groundwater, I
think the answer would be no. Presumably any liquid, with sufficient pressure, could go through them.
If you mean is there any regulatory
restriction, then, yes, groundwater has to be permitted by
HTGCD via a pumping permit -- unless the user is exempt.
As to your second question -- about
whether purchaser of the LCRA pipelines is guaranteed surface water (from Lake Travis or elsewhere)to go along with the lines, the public doesn't know, and
so far Hays County Commissioners
Court hasn't answered questions
on that subject (and on many others).
Dripping Springs is currently in the West Travis County Regional System of LCRA. That Region provides retail water, raw water service, and wastewater service -- but not all services to the whole Region. Within West Travis:
1. LCRA provides retail water service to Dripping Springs Water Supply Corp and to Bee Cave;
2. LCRA provides raw water service to Lakeway; and,
3. LCRA provides wastewater service to Bee Cave, West Lake Hills, and Rollingwood.
Leander is not in the West Travis
Region, but in the Williamson County Region. Why they want to partner with the Coalition is a
mystery. It's probably a matter of
mutual need -- neither Leander alone nor DS-Bee Cave together has
much bargaining power with LCRA.
I fear DS (or Hays County) is going
to end up buying more LCRA facilities than it needs. DS does
need the drinking water lines, but probably the city would be responsible for the great expense of renovating and expanding services to the Hamilton Pool area.
The only wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) near DS (and owned by LCRA) is in Bee Cave -- many expensive
pipeline miles from the City of DS.
DSWSC has a small wastewater facility. It probably would be less
expensive to expand that plant than
to buy into the Bee Cave WWTP and
also to pay for pipelines from Bee
Cave to DS. Possibly Federal grants could help, or fully, foot
the bill to enlarge the present DSWSC wastewater facility.
What happens if neither Dripping
Springs nor Hays County nor any
water supplier is willing to pay the price demanded by LCRA for
the DS-area water lines? Does LCRA
have to keep supplying water to DS
then?
I realize LCRA could raise its rates, but it would take an enormous rate rise to equal the
cost of buying the lines and then
making the renovations and expansions need to them.
"Whose best..." said:
"What needs to be examined here is
WHY this water system is losing so much money and figure out a way to remedy that before buying it."
I think we already know why, and
there is no way we can remedy any of the causes.
1. Hays County is the fastest-growing county in the state. More
population means many more miles of pipeline and more plants to serve those customers. = EXPENSES UP.
2. Some of the facilities and lines are getting on in age and have to be replaced and expanded.
= EXPENSES UP.
3. LCRA was subsidizing the customer rates to keep them artificially low so as to avoid customer hue and cry which would scare off prospective buyers of the
LCRA assets. = INADEQUATE REVENUE
Those three reasons are why DS
should not buy the properties. We
can't remedy 1 and 2 without great cost on top of the purchase price,
and we can't afford to subsidize the customer rates (3).
Commissioner Whisenant says that the only persons who will pay on any revenue bonds issued to buy LCRA assets will be the people who use the water. They will pay higher monthly water bills. Those are going to be some HEFTY bills. Mr. Whisenant acknowledges that there are currently only approx.
10,000 customers for those lines, and the purchase price for the LCRA properties -- PLUS costs for renovation and expansion -- will be in the multi-millions of dollars. I don't believe DS, Belterra, Sunset Canyon, and other
current customers can pay the rates
it would take to operate in the black -- not the red.
Everyone seems to agree that water
rates will rise by a great deal no matter who buys the LCRA properties. That being so, let DS or Hays County stay out of the mess. Let Aqua Texas or some other
buyer be the "greater fool."
The no-growthers in the Wimberley Valley are being quiet on this subject because anything that causes others especially DS people to pay more for water fits their goal of a people-free zone. They actually hope to prevent developments like Caliterra by punishing everyone in the area. They want the groundwater for themselves and no introduction of surface water. Ask any one of them about importing surface water and you will just get a blank stare.
They apparently believe that if the County takes over the LCRA assets the water will be so expensive that no one will move here. Blinded by their selfish goals the fail to see that the County will have to spread the cost among the taxpayers of Hays County including most of them.
To Anon Apr 24, 7:28 AM:
No, Mr. Whisenant has already assured citizens of Hays County that only the users of LCRA water will pay for it. The cost will NOT
be spread among taxpayers of the whole county.
"Electricity continues to be LCRA's
primary revenue source."
(www.lcra.org)
By selling 32 water and wastewater plants, LCRA plans to get out of the water treatment business altogether. They will still sell raw water to communities. But their fast-growing electric services are their primary interest now.
Think about it Anon, Apr 24, 7:28 AM:
Why should all Hays County taxpayers pay for LCRA surface water for Dripping Springs users? Hays County taxpayers don't pay for groundwater for groundwater users anywhere in Hays Couty.
You should read the Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws for the
proposed Coalition of buyers of
LCRA pipelines. I can't excerpt it
all here -- would be pages long.
Item 11 on the April 26 agenda of
Commissioners Court pertains to the
Coalition. Go to www.co.hays.tx.us and click on Weekly Agenda. Next click on April 26 agenda. You can read the agenda and the many pages of backup material online. Pages 45-79 are backup for Item 11.
One fact that surfaces is that is
was the City of Leander which initated the formation of the Coalition. The proposed 3 directors will be Place 1 - Pix
Howell (Leander), Place 2 - Frank Salvato (Lakeway), and Place 3 - Ray Whisenant (Dripping Springs).
The Articles of Incorporation incorrectly state that Commissioners Court of Hays County
approved the articles during the April 12 Court session. That's when the Court had expected to ram the Coalition formation and articles through.
(Lakeway buys raw water from LCRA.)
It's interesting that on the April 12 agenda, both Whisenant's and
Conley's names appear as Sponsors of the Coalition Resolution. On the
April 26 agenda, only Whisenant's
name appears as Sponsor.
Is Conley sensing that he is backing a lame horse?
From April 26 agenda, p.54 of backup materials concerning the Articles of Incorporation:
"...the Corporation shall not have any authority to issue bonds, notes or any debt obligation, or by contract undertake an obligation that is not to be funded
SOLELY by revenues of the purchased water and wastewater utilities, sytems and facilities...."
Also,
"...no bonds, notes or financial obligations of the Corporation shall ever be or become debt of the Local Governments."
This info affirms that only the
users of the LCRA water will pay
for the pipelines, plants, water.
Hays County CANNOT assume any of the debt. Nor can the cities of
Dripping Springs, Bee Cave, Leander, Lakeway, or any other city
which becomes a member of the Coalition.
The LCRA users will pay water rates
comparable to those of captive
Aqua Texas customers. Higher water
bills are inevitable as more distant sources of water are funneled to users.
On April 12th Commissioner Whisenant told us that the cost of the systems will be more than the County can afford and that the people of Hays County would be assuming debt, backed by all taxable property in Hays County as collateral.
On April 19th, the story seems to have changed.
This contradiction alone qualifies the topic for extensive discussion, and there are others to be claried, too.
Another topic that qualifies the topic for extensive discussion is whether the County has any interest in this at all.
I see this as a combination of water service to 5-10,000 existing customers near Dripping Springs, and to serve potential new development in northern Hays and probably even down to Wimberley in the future.
There will likely be expensive maintenance and repairs, and potentially tens of millions in expansion of lines toward new development areas.
The people who benefit from the acquisition of the lines - current customers and developers - have the option to pay for the lines if they choose. Under no circumstances should the people of Hays County be called on to subsidize any future development.
So far, the ratio of contradictions relative to the small amount of discussion that's taken place is inordinately high. Until our elected officials demonstrate they're willing to have a full and complete discussion on their plans, there should be no vote on moving forward with any aspect of this.
Unfortunately, I doubt there will be any backing off by the Court, and with Comm. Conley's return, I expect it to pass with little discussion. I doubt that would be the case if we were having more direct conversations with our elected officials.
This is an example of why Public Hearings on debt, spending and taxes are in order.
On Tuesday, I hope to see Commissioners Ingalasbe and Jones speak out rather than quietly vote "No".
I also hope to see you there as well, speaking your peace on the matter.
Some time ago Lucy Reed Hibberd's mother donated 40 acres to be used as Dripping Springs first wastewater treatment plant. Is that WWTP operational? If so, where is it located?
to Anon, Apr 24, 1:47 PM--
The South Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant of the City of DS
seems to be located at 23127 RR 150, next to Howard Ranch Subdivision.
The DS wastewater plant is located
near the RR12/FM150 intersection,
south of 150 and east of RR12. It's
located on 40 acres of land donated
for that purpose to city of DS by
Roberta Crenshaw. That might sound
mighty nice until you realize that
Mrs. Crenshaw (RPC Investments) made/makes her fortune from oil royalties and LAND INVESTMENT. She gave the 40 acres out of a much larger parcel of land that she still owns adjacent to the WWTP. Isn't that convenient for a subdivision right on 150, near DS? On the other side of the WWTP is Howard Ranch subdivision. Down RR 12 a very short distance away is the site for Caliterra. Isn't this sounding cozy and friendly?
to Anon, 24th, 4:58pm
"(Ms. Crenshaw) gave the 40 acres out of a much larger parcel of land that she still owns adjacent to the WWTP. Isn't that convenient for a subdivision right on 150, near DS? On the other side of the WWTP is Howard Ranch subdivision. Down RR 12 a very short distance away is the site for Caliterra. Isn't this sounding cozy and friendly?"
Fine by me, and there's no scandal here unless public funds are used to develop that property. The LCRA deal may qualify as such.
@Fair's fair April 24, 2011 10:47 AM who said
"Why should all Hays County taxpayers pay for LCRA surface water for Dripping Springs users? Hays County taxpayers don't pay for groundwater for groundwater users anywhere in Hays Couty [sic]"
Except that "all Hays County taxpayers" via the Commissioners Court are attempting to deny many landowners the right to access groundwater. Tell ya what, let's protect the right to access groundwater for ALL landowners and see how many people will choose to pay for that LCRA water when they have a choice.
to Anon April 24, 11:14 PM:
You say taxpayers representing Hays County as a whole, "...via the Commissioners Court, are attempting to deny many landowners the right to access groundwater."
You put forward a straw man, a false opponent, to then beat up before the public. Only 2% of groundwater wells are even able to be regulated by Commissioners Court or by HTGCD. ALL individual wells and ALL agricultural users are exempt. The 2% left to be regulated are land developers. And
the main reason we taxpayers want them to be regulated is that they do not pay their own way. They have all sorts of perks that the average citizen does not. For each house they build, they bring $25,000 in unfunded (by them) costs that we taxpayers have to pick up.
Development should pay its own way -- not further enrich itself at cost to taxpayers.
@One for All,
Maybe you haven’t been keeping up with current events, but recently the County passed a regulation forbidding the drilling of domestic wells on lots smaller than 6 acres. I call that, the County denying individuals with less than 6 acres the right to access groundwater (that they have a vested ownership in) under their own property. In other words, a “Taking” by rule. As to where they got the right to regulate any groundwater, remains a question for the courts. I maintain that they have no jurisdiction over groundwater. It is important to notice that they stopped short of denying existing wells on less than 6 acres. See the pattern, it is existing property owners versus new property owners, brought to you courtesy of the “I was here first” crowd.
Your rant about developers and the “$25,000 in unfunded (by them) costs” makes no sense. Please explain yourself, if you can.
The first post by, Whose best interests said,
“Just look at Aqua Texas in Woodcreek for an example of what happens when a private, for-profit company controls the water services for a community.”
You should know that the only reason that Aqua Texas is currently running the water utility is because no municipality could or would. Their rates are high simply because the former companies didn’t want to raise the rates to repair the original system (pipes) that were incompetently installed. The original build was a fraud done right under the nose of the County and no one else but ATI could or would tackle the rebuild. Without ATI the Woodcreeks would now be bankrupt or ghost towns.
So much for government run systems and oversight.
To Anon April 25, 12:35 PM:
With their Development Regulations, Hays County Commissioners Court did not "take" anything from anyone. ALL wells (on any size lot) that already existed when the Dev. Regs. were passed were grandfathered. Commissioners Court did not pass an ex post facto law.
My understanding (from current events reading) is that the one-well-per-6-acres applies only to newly-built houses. If a developer wants to put in a centralized water system, he can build on FAR smaller lots. The choice is his.
Let's say you have 230 acres --near Henly, maybe. No one has "taken" your land OR your groundwater. You can sell the bare land itself for more than you
paid for it. You can put down a well anywhere on the 230 acres and pump water to your heart's content -- no restrictions. You can sink 38 wells if you want to ( 230 acres divided by 6 acres per well)! You can build a subdivision on your acreage and put in water lines for a central water system and turn out houses on small lots.
What, exactly, have you lost? Nothing has been "taken" from you. Neither land nor groundwater.
Hey, Anon Apr 25, 12:35 pm-
Why are you trying to cast everything as "existing" landowners versus "new" landowners? Especially since you are one of the "existing" crowd?
You were once a "newbie," too. You
had to play by the then-current rules, didn't you? Even though there were old-timers around who
built houses and dug wells when the rules were pretty lax. Did you whine and say you wanted to go back to the 1877 rules (if there were any)?
I am amazed that people who want to take individual property rights, don’t get it’ If I had 4 acres before the “County Rule” I could have drilled a well on my land but afterwards I can’t so that diminishes the value of my land. That my friend is a "Taking" by the County, the same as in your example of 230 acres and I wanted to drill 40 wells, I can’t due to the “Taking” and that diminishes my properties value. BTW, I don’t own anywhere close to 230- acres , so you guessed wrong. You have been blinded by your own propaganda.
At approximately 10:00 AM today the question was voted on by the CC and passed 4-1 with Commissioner Jones the lonely NO vote. Commissioner Ingalsby caved in probably from bullying from you know who. Still the unanswered question remains; why is the County involved in something that only effects 5,000 to 10,000 people? Why are not the municipalities and water companies covering those 5k-10k people on-board? The commissioners claim that the customers of the present LCRA will have to pony up the millions to make the systems solvent. Do you see the problem with the math for that one? Barbara Hopson did, and asked that question but received no answer. Still only Bee Caves, Leander and Hays County are the whole Coalition.
The way the thing is setup right mow the County is not obligated to spend any money except a “small amount” for due diligence. Of course things may change! And so it goes in the County of Hays.
Kudos to Barbara Hopson for her efforts! You too Sam!
@Anonymous April 25, 2011 8:27 PM who said:
"I am amazed that people who want to take individual property rights, don’t get it"
You are SO correct. These same folks promoted rule that places NO minimum lot size if the water is provided from a "groundwater based central water system" (e.g., investor owned utility). The intellectual dishonesty is somewhat appalling.
In fact, the county rules create an incentive for high density growth and create disincentives for larger parcels. The result will be high density growth and a much higher rate consumption of water per acre thanks to the so-called "environmentalists".
Looks like the May 14 election will arrive without any of us ever getting to see/hear HTGCD candidate Greg Nesbitt. He ducked the Candidates Forum in Wimberley on April 18, and now he says he can't make the Forum in Dripping Springs on May 1. Guess he's afraid to be compared to his opponent, Steve Janda.
Greg also isn't answering his phone unless he recognizes the phone number calling him. Might be a question (one of many) he can't answer, or worse yet, another invitation to speak.
“Guess he's afraid to be compared to his opponent, Steve Janda.”
You guessed wrong! Greg has a two year resume’ of serving on the HTGCD Board. If it matters, Greg called in sick for the April 18th forum and the league ladies failed to mention it. Call ‘em and ask them.
Janda, while a personable gent, had some baggage in the form of Karen Ford. She has formed him into a mouthpiece for her hopes and desires since she was defeated last November. Steve Janda’s admitted support for Senate Bill 1901 is very telling in that it what Ms. Ford wanted all along, full Chapter 36+ authority and an ad valorem tax funding the HTGCD plus entering private property without permission and metering personal wells. That power has been denied to the HTGCD by the voters from the very beginning of the GCD as they will deny Steve Janda position #2.
to Anon, April 27, 10:38 am--
1. Those people who are opposed to HTGCD say "if we give HTGCD full Chapter 36 authority, we'll have an ad valorem tax for HTGCD." That's incorrect, and they know it.
Before HTGCD can have a small ad
valorem tax to enable them to carry out their proscribed duties, citizens get to vote on it. If, and only if, the taxpayers agree to tax themselves will there be an HTGCD ad valorem tax. Currently Rep. Jason Isaac isn't cooperating with Sen. Jeff Wentworth to pass a bill in the Lege to give Chapter 36 authority to HTGCD.
2. The president (Carol Pino) of the League of Women Voters didn't announce at the Candidates Forum on April 18 that Greg Nesbitt was sick because she didn't know it until she arrived home around 10 p.m. to find a phone message from
him. Greg called sometime after 6:10 p.m. (when Ms. Pino left her house to go to the Forum) to say
that he was sick. The Forum began at 7 p.m.
3. Greg Nesbitt's "resume," as you call it, includes a total of maybe 300 words spoken in his entire time on the HTGCD Board, and most of them were "Aye" or "Nay," according to how Skipton and Key voted.
Post a Comment