This vision, which I share with many local residents, is to imagine a Hill Country landscape, mostly rural, with beautiful vistas, healthy wildlife habitat, and clear flowing valley streams. Add the possibility of quiet and solitude and you have perhaps the opposite of crowding and noise and traffic
Note: Jack Hollon, here representing the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association, the keeper of Jacob's Well and the Jacob's Well Natural Area, offers a simple vision that in all likelihood matches what the great silent majority in western Hays County would like to see – it's probably why everybody moved to the Hill Country in the first place. Yet the pressures politically and otherwise for growth, expansion and development are great. Clear examples are the MUD bills and the county development district bill sponsored by State Rep. Jason Isaac (scroll down two stories). Unfortunately, growth by itself is not a vision. If you know of anyone with a better or more perfect vision, and what it is, please share it with your local elected officials. Their eyes glaze over usually when asked for their own vision.
Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Mr. Hollon at jhollon37tx@yahoo.com or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
By Jack Hollon
Guest Commentary
Recently I had an opportunity to visit briefly with County Judge Bert Cobb when he came to Jacob’s Well for a Saturday tour of Hays County property there. He asked a question that has stayed with me, though we had no time to discuss it then: “What is your vision for this area? What would you like to see here?”After some thought, my short response for the Spring-Creek system is: “Keep it clean, clear, and flowing,” a sort of mantra for those who have worked on the Cypress Creek Project. But we recognize that achieving this will not be easy. The trajectory we are on is demanding more and more from the aquifer, more than natural recharge supplies, which leads to a gradual lowering of the water table. Some call this “mining.”
The result is that when rainfall is below average, the aquifer’s base flow to springs and streams falters much earlier than it used to. During the 7-to-10 year “drought of record” (1950s), Jacob’s Well continued to flow. However, twice in the past decade (2000 and 2009), with many new wells competing for the same water, the flow ceased during dry times of about two years each.
salsa verde/statesman.com/click on image to enlarge
So, our vision or plan to keep the well and Creek flowing must involve area-wide support to do two things, along with sound water conservation: First, protect and enhance recharge through land conservation in the recharge area; and Second, reduce demand on the aquifer by making rainwater (RW) harvesting systems the standard Hill Country-Western Hays water supply choice, basically for all new construction, plus an incentive to phase out many wells now pumping and replace with RW systems. (This proposal will be expanded in a future article and compared with the costs of bringing in surface water or groundwater – if any such water exists – via big pipes.)
Back to the Judge’s vision question: Surveys of area residents preceding the vote on Hays Parks and Open Space Bonds showed a large majority concerned about our water resources, as well as open space and habitat for wildlife. The bond issue passed by a large margin.
This vision, which I share with many local residents, is to imagine a Hill Country landscape, mostly rural, with beautiful vistas, healthy wildlife habitat, and clear flowing valley streams. Add the possibility of quiet and solitude and you have perhaps the opposite of crowding and noise and traffic. This is not a selfish vision, for our fellow urban dwellers will be thankful that such places have been preserved for them to visit and enjoy . . . for re-Creation.
These thoughts on Vision can be compared to the DFC Process now under way in area water planning. “Desired Future Condition” and “Vision” do sound roughly similar. But, hang on.
Western Hays County is part of GMA9, one of the State’s 16 groundwater management areas. By law, each GMA has been working for the past several years to determine the DFC for its local aquifer(s). Last July, the members of GMA9 voted to allow, or manage toward, a 30-f00t average drawdown over the next 50 years in the Trinity Aquifer across nine Hill Country counties.
Desired indeed. In attending many meetings and several hearings concerning the DFC process, I have never once heard an individual citizen express a desire to have the local water table lowered by any amount, much less 30 feet. Such a drawdown would be certain to cause widespread well problems and to dry up local springs and streams in all but very wet years.
The vote for a 30 ft average decline in the aquifer is a cynical and temporary victory for widespread development and urbanization, over local efforts to retain Hill Country values. It reflects the power of land speculators and developers in politics and law, and in brainwashing the populace that their “growth vision” is inevitable.
The DFC decision will not be accepted without a fight, without resistance from the people who live here and care about the Home Place and their communities. State law allows an appeal.
On March 28, the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association filed a petition protesting the DFC and its probable effects on Western Hays County. The 14-page petition was accompanied by a 6-inch stack of attachments on related science and law, testimony by professionals, and affidavits. The petition will also be sent to the other districts in GMA9 and to the Texas Water Development Board. Stay tuned.
We shall work vigorously to establish a Desired Future Condition for water resources that is consonant with the Vision that most residents hold dear for our Texas Hill Country.
“Without a vision the People perish.” (Pericles)
37 comments:
The current DFC (if capable of being adhered to) is 3 times better than what was going on when Hollon was sitting on the HTGCD. Jack, the "desire" represents the goal of limiting the drop to 30 feet instead of the 100 feet the area was on track for while you were on the HTGCD.
The petition is wishful, egotistical, and vain. Just as the earth went through ice ages independent of any influence of mankind, the earth experiences other cycles completely independent of wishful thinking or the influence of man.
The egotistical and vain characterizations come from WVWA's belief that the effects of natural cycles and events such as droughts can simply be legislated out of existence. Like it or not, Hays county has at least 10 times the population that it did in the 1950s and it's a little absurd to demand water usage be prohibited to preserve a water amenity idol during periods of drought.
The source of water for Jacobs Well being groundwater is disputed. Under rules developed while you were on the board it is deemed actionable "waste" for a property owner to allow groundwater to run into creeks, streams, etc. yet here you are demanding the preservation of a natural leak which in any other context would be classified as "waste" if Jacobs Well were groundwater.
If you want to encourage less dense housing, then why not start with the current version of the county's subdivision rules and eliminate the incentives for dense housing as well as the disincentives for sparse housing.
My vision for Jacobs Well is that the cult over there quit acting like they have anything to do with the Jacobs Well water flow. WVWA is the forum for the witchdoctor that found a volcano and promises to keep the volcano gods pleased so long as the locals sacrifice and give to the witchdoctor/forum. The witchdoctor puts on shows to maintain the illusion of control/responsibility necessary to keep those contributions rolling in.
By the way, where funds from the County Park Bonds program used to pay for this newest protest from WVWA?
The Pericles quote should be rephrased to represent WVWA's actual objective which is to wipe out people in order to preserve WVWA's vision.
Speaking of legislation, it's pretty apparent from the activities of WVWA that it should have lost its 501(c)(3) charter long ago. The organization is little more than a PAC and most of its time and energy appears to be directed towards lobbying and legislative activities including sitting on local government boards and ruling/voting on matters to benefit WVWA.
Just FYI the DFC for HTGCD is actually 19 feet, 30 feet was the average for the whole of GMA 9.
to Anon April 5, 9:51 AM:
1) What evidence do you have to support your allegation that the
GMA 9 area was headed for an average 100-foot decline in water level when Jack Hollon served on the HTGCD Board?
2) In your last paragraph you say
that "WVWA's actual objective is to
wipe out people in order to preserve WVWA's vision." What drivel! WVWA doesn't want to "wipe
out people," but it does want to
conserve water for the people who
are already here. Our groundwater
supply is already overpumped. Why
should we continue to encourage
people to move here? It's not being
selfish or "no-growther" to question the wisdom of rampant
development -- it's being prudent.
Hey, Jimmy. Back in the ice ages
man wasn't capable/hadn't invented
ways of controlling his environment. We can do that in some ways now, man!
For example, don't use up more
groundwater than we know we can
use each year without lowering the
water table.
Try implementing that idea as
president of the HTGCD Board. You
know -- "protect and conserve?"
Good point Anonymous regarding the 19 feet for this area. 50 years and 19 feet really isn't very much.
Since WVWA will be pushing "0", I wonder who will have the negative drawdown required to end up with 0 average?
The "0" is not sustainable and that is really the goal of WVWA. They'll talk big about "sustaining the aquifer" but they also vehemently oppose surface water brought to the area. It's not about water, it's about controlling water to make "people free" areas - except of course for themselves.
The slide show that Baker has repeatedly presented over and over again illustrates a linear 2 foot per year (i.e., 100 foot per 50 years) drawdown since at least 2001.
Since Baker is "Executive Director" of WVWA, WVWA and Hollon will have a difficulty denying the numbers presented by their own Executive Director at open meetings, don't you think?
Good luck with your "0" average request. If Jacobs Well were actually sourced from groundwater, then you could meet your objective by plugging up that leaky hole without all the hullaballoo.
to the 4/5/11 Anon @11:38,
My name isn't Jimmy and you are right that man has some control over his environment. I'd start first with some plumbing by fixing that leak called Jacobs Well.
to the 4/15/11 Anon @11:32,
Of course WVWA is seeking to wipe out people as well as any property rights and the usability of much of the land in the area. The "for the people that are here" gives you away. Apparently it is okay for you to move here and then you expect to say no one else can? Maybe if you don't like it, then you should move instead of believing yourself "empowered" to prevent others from moving here.
The legislation pursued by WVWA is designed to make sure property can't get water - thus rendering it uninhabitable for people. Of course they also want to grandfather themselves and their members in. Catch a clue. It's not a question of "not encouraging people to move here". To the contrary, your whole platform is to make vast areas uninhabitable for people and you have no qualms trying to make everyone else's property worthless when pursuing your objectives.
WVWA is a lobbying organization. WVWA's articles, resolutions presented to political bodies, Baker's voting activities, etc. should suffice to get your 501(c)(3) revoked and make your PAC members pay taxes on "contributions" they should not ever have gotten a tax deduction for. In addition, the maintenance contracts with Hays County need to be put on hold until WVWA's books are put on display to show where much of these lobbying funds are coming from.
to Anon April 5, 12:25 PM:
I am not familiar with WVWA's
position on the idea of importing
surface water to Hays County.
But I do know that there ain't
much of it left to be imported.
Unlike groundwater, surface water
IS the property of the state of
Texas. Texas has created River
Authority districts to manage
surface water. A great deal of
the surface water was permitted
to what are called "historic users." Those usually are farmers
and ranchers who had already been
using river water for irrigation and livestock long before the River
Authories were created. Through
the years surface water has been
permitted to some businesses as well. (For example, Guadalupe
Blanco River Authority permitted
water to the Alcoa plant.)
But the bottom line I'm working
to is that there is very little
SURFACE water left to be permitted.
Even if we were willing to undergo
the horrendous cost of piping it
to us, there just isn't much left
to be permitted. The San Marcos
River has permitted every single
ounce of its water. That's true of
other rivers as well.
So, don't blame WVWA if you won't
be able to use surface water.
The most likely methods of solving our future water needs are conservation and rainwater harvesting.
The Water and Wastewater Plan for
Caldwell County includes advice
that one future way for the county
to ensure its water needs is to
require that new homes be built
with rainwater harvesting systems
already built in.
Here's hoping that the State of
Texas doesn't follow Colorado and
say that ALL the water that falls
from the sky belongs to the state
and that rainwater harvesting is
illegal!
FACE REALITY.
That's my vision before Jack Hollon's.
We are reaching our water limit and there ain't that much left in the rivers and lakes and underground aquifers to go around anyways.
We must tell the developers and their elected official enablers to quit playing Russian Roulette with our water. Conserve and provide for the people who are here now at the table.
Goodness sakes, forget about more subdivisions until we know exactly how much water we got for the next 10 or 20 years, for our kids and grandkids.
To Mr. Hollon I would say not everyone can afford to retrofit their homes with a full blown rainwater system of 10,000 gallons or above. Muy expensivo compared to my well.
It's true that rainwater collection
systems aren't cheap, but there are
ways to spread the cost out over many years AND to use the cost of
the system as a deduction on your tax return, the way you use property taxes as a deduction now.
I didn't pay much attention about a
year ago when a friend visiting from Sonoma, CA told me how she had
had her house retrofitted for solar
electricity. I wish I'd paid more
attention, but it went something like this:
Her city (or county) had completed
arrangements for a bond issue for
money to install solar power on
citizens' homes. My friend got a
list of city- (or county-) approved
installers, and the work was done.
The city paid the installer, and
the cost of the project was added
to the property tax bill of my
friend, to be paid out over 20 or 30 years, at a low rate of interest.
But the city did make a small amount on the deal, too, because if
the bonds were floated at 5% interest, say, then the city charged my friend maybe 5 1|4%
interest. That difference to the
city helped pay for all the paper-work, plus a little more. The city
also doesn't have to use as much coal or hydroelectricity or nuclear
power to produce electricity.
My friend gets:
cheaper and more dependable electricy from her new solar outfit; an affordable outfit because she can pay it off over 30
years; the ability to use the cost
of the solar unit --and interest-
as a tax deduction, because it is
paid as a property tax.
If my friend sells the house, the
next buyer continues with the
payments for the solar system until it is paid off, and gets the
same benefits my friend has. The
buyer knows up front that that is
the case, but is happy for the same
reasons my friend was.
We could do something similar here
with rainwater collection. If we
in this county are bound and
determined to INCREASE bond debt,
at least let it be for something
that will REDUCE our energy bills
and eliminate the need for those
"clean-burning" coal plants that
are planned for all around Austin.
I haven't bothered to find the
details on the internet, but my
friend said they are there. Look
for "Sonoma CA solar program," maybe. Or go to City of Sonoma CA
website.
Well at least some of you are being honest about the fact that it is that you don’t want anyone else to move into your “Little Bit of Heaven”. I has always been that way, you just use an exaggerated shortage of water as an excuse. Of course the cult of WVWA and their phony claims about Jacob’s Well being a canary in the coal mime and other such silliness are to keep the faithful happy. Maybe Guru Baker and company missed it but the DFC was set last year in July, so why now do they come forward with this pile of papers that will accomplish nothing? I guess it is some kind of “feel good” thing.
@Anonymous at April 5, 2011 6:14 PM
I am offended by the notion that the taxpayers should fund rainwater collecting for individuals. What is this, another Skooter Store scam? If you can convert to rainwater on your own then do so, otherwise don’t expect me to pay a dime for your life style choices. Go to the bank and get financing or ask your Mother. I support rainwater and other forms of alternative energy sources but not at the expense of the taxpayers. To some people, everything has to be a government program. There’s way to many hogs at the trough already.
I belong to the "Cult of Me" and I think that all the right wing yahoos should just get on with it and suck up and dissipate all the water in our aquifers in just a few years by filling up their inflatable swimming pools and the buckets they use while washing their 1987 Buick LaSabres and to fill the catfish ponds near their illegal within the city limits rifle shooting ranges.
Then, all us socialist and free love cult liberals can come back in with our massive amounts of money and buy up all the spider web filled repossessed mobile homes and storage shacks and collectively (as in communist) pool our money for surface water and government mandated rain water collection units and establish a left wing no growth gated community that is run by communitarians and led by the brilliant planners over at WVWA.
What do you thing of those ideas, Bubba? I think you are just jealous. Admit it!
to Anon April 5, 7:06 PM:
Read again what I wrote. There is
no taxpayer funding of rainwater
collection or of anything else in
what I described.
Bonds are sold by a city or county,
and the money is lent to citizens
to obtain rainwater collection for
their homes, but all the bond money
and interest is paid back to the
city or county by the citizens who
borrowed the money-- not by all the taxpapyers at large. Citizens can pay the borrowed money (and interest) back monthly or can pay
it in one lump sum each year, with
their property taxes. Our county
could do it in whatever fashion
we desired.
And this is just a tentative idea. Something to use as a springboard for brainstorming.
But it WOULD make rainwater collection affordable for many
families, and it could be a tax
deduction as well.
I've met Jack Hollon once or twice, and I take him to be very sincere in what he cares about, and from the folks that seem to know him fairly well I hear only good things.
That said, his association with David Baker (and therefore Conley and Barton) makes me wonder whether he's a bright as he seems.
Baker has the local environmental movement supporting his misdeeds in the Jacob's Well fiasco. He's got them thinking the conservation land scheme really has something to do with conservation - it doesn't. These are examples of pseudo-environmentalism, and its very dangerous because it siphons energy and money from REAL conservation efforts, and leads people into thinking they're doing good while they're lining the pockets of special interests.
Until the local environmental movement goes after Gorman and his 29 wells that dump directly into the creek, they'll have a hard time convincing anyone they're credible. And until WVWA dumps David Baker and his political cronies, they should be ignored.
@Anonymous April 5, 2011 10:56 PM
Here is my "Brainstorm"
Selling Bonds to make an unsecured loan to someone who can’t qualify for a bank loan or giving a tax credit is still a government hand out! If enough money were loaned or credited the local government would have to raise taxes to function. They would call it a temporary surcharge but it would last for 20 or 30 years.
I simply can’t understand why you and some members of the public do not see that debt as a cost to them. It is just this kind of non-thinking that has our country in the horrible financial shape (bankrupt) it is in.
Rainwater harvesting along with graywater recycling, for lawn and garden irrigation, swimming pools and flushing toilets etc. is not the expensive task it would be if processed for drinking. The gray/rainwater system could be gradually enhanced or updated to filter and sterilize for drinking and cooking. If everybody used rainwater and graywater for those things, our groundwater would last at least as long as we will and our communities could continue to grow.
No more Government Handouts!
The people-free zone "vision" sounds like scenes from Soylent Green. People watch such imaginary scenery while engaging in assisted suicide. Will we be reading much longer about the cult of Baker-town?
Don't eat any green crackers that might be served up along with the "sustainability" sales pitch.
@Anonymous April 5, 2011 11:35 PM
You said... “Until the local environmental movement goes after Gorman and his 29 wells that dump directly into the creek, they'll have a hard time convincing anyone they're credible.”
I say ... Who the Hell is “Gorman”? Please tell us more. Dumping groundwater into a creek is a violation of law and should be punished.
Anonymous on said:
"The people-free zone 'vision' sounds like scenes from Soylent Green. People watch such imaginary scenery while engaging in assisted suicide."
Except that the movie "Soylent Green" was a pre-NRA Charleston Heston flick about a right wing totalitarian state that over the years concentrated all of society's wealth into the hands of a very few elite life planners (who now controlled the government) and had to produce green slabs of protein from processed dead bodies to feed the masses.
So it sounds much more like the Republican Party - not WVWA.
Anonymous said:
"Except that the movie "Soylent Green" was a pre-NRA Charleston Heston flick about a right wing totalitarian state that over the years concentrated all of society's wealth into the hands of a very few elite life planners (who now controlled the government) and had to produce green slabs of protein from processed dead bodies to feed the masses. ... So it sounds much more like the Republican Party - not WVWA."
This is not a "party" issue and WVWA is absolutely trying to take wealth away from everyone else in the area. The "conservation" land deal was an absolute scam. The county pays premium dollars for a property that is valueless because of the development rights deliberately GIVEN to The Nature Conservancy as part of the deal. County should have only paid what it was worth. Guess who holds virtually all the value of the property - TNC does and at taxpayer expense. Who pushed that? WVWA did.
Guess who is trying to prevent water from being made available to property in the area? WVWA is. You won't find them promoting surface water being brought in as an alternative, either. So it is really about ruination of property all around them for their own "vision".
Gorman (think I recall the name correctly) is a Hays land owner and a big Democratic contributor. I'm told likes the little pool he created in the creek.
This is fairly commonly known among environmental insiders since the photos were passed around last year.
Still no talk and no action on it though while the "leftists" and "rightists" wage verbal wars at HTGWD, and while $6 million is wasted on land deals for WVWA.
Soylent Green sound bite
Anonymous of April 6 @ 1:43 PM
stated:
"This is not a "party" issue and WVWA is absolutely trying to take wealth away from everyone else in the area."
That is false assumption. You ask Democrats whether they think WVWA is a "cult special interest wealth destroyer and bad for Hays County" and most would tell you you are full of manure speak. Yes, they have some career and economic self-interest in the Jacob's Well protection effort, but so does everything Isaac and all you free markets ideologues say and do.
You also say, as if your own conclusions are inherently true:
"So it is really about ruination of property all around them for their own vision."
This is more nonsense - as many west Hays County people want to limit growth here and make sure we have ample water for our future - and I am an independent.
Which proves you live in your own world of promoting unbridled development & unplanned growth as your "weltmantra."
I got an idea! You concrete over DP, Kyle and Buda, and let Wimberley decide at our pace if we do or don't want to be a concrete-free zone.
According to your definition, if WVWA is a cult, so is the Republican Party, the Tea Baggers, the anti-abortion politicians in Austin who fantasize about administering the sonograms, and almost everyone who thinks they are "right - no ifs ands or buts about it."
"Truth" you can't keep your story straight. However, this is not a political party issue. This is a property rights issue.
You said "This is more nonsense - as many west Hays County people want to limit growth here and make sure we have ample water for our future - and I am an independent."
The comment you responded was directed to WVWA, not a political party. The "anti-growth" group seeks to make other property owners' land uninhabitable by ensuring water is unavailable through legislative activity - inherently also destroying the value of property belonging to others.
You expect "growth" to the extent it allowed you to have a house or a farm or something other than raw land .... but now try to rationalize denying other property owners similar freedoms. You are a complete hypocrite.
You said "Which proves you live in your own world of promoting unbridled development & unplanned growth as your "weltmantra." "
You've proven only that you are an unapologetic hypocrite. I did not "promote growth" only a recognition that all property owners have the same fundamental property rights. If you want governmental action to take what belongs to others, then you better be prepared to compensate all the property owners you want to take from.
It's apparent, however, that most of the folks pushing the "make other property owners land uninhabitable" and "people free zone" agenda are unwilling and unable to pay that price.
The meeting of the HTGCD board in Wimberley was well attended last night. At issue was whether the "requests for contested case status" filed by a number of protesters would be considered timely filed.
A substitute attorney appeared on behalf of WVWA's attorney in order to argue their case. WVWA's David Baker did not bother to show although many in attendance were from WVWA.
The protesters argued that WVWA was "less than 15 minutes late", lack of adequate notice, and threatened legal action for alleged violations of the open meetings act. The board inquired as to what those violations might be, noted that the 02/21/2011 meeting was in fact well-attended and many of the protesters had attended the meeting as well as prior meetings regarding the same permit application. The notice for 02/21/2011 indicated the proposed permit and identified it as a possible action action. Protesters presented opinions at the meeting but none requested to become a party in a legal proceedings. As a result of the lack of requests for contested case status, the board had no reason to not act on the permit and it was granted on 02/21/2011.
WVWA's attorney argued that there was a "lack of explicit instructions" instructing the protesters to file on or before the hearing of 02/21/2011.
The board went into executive session with its attorney and emerged about 1/2 hour later. The board moved to find that the requests were not timely filed and would be denied. The reasoning was that none of the requests were timely filed. All of them were 7-10 days late and made well after the permit had been granted. The 12 minutes WVWA was arguing about did not explain the 10 days delay before that. In addition, there had been no provision in the rules for the protesters to file AFTER the action granting the permit on 02/21/2011.
Regarding the inability of non-applicants to request contested case status after a board had acted....
The HTGCD rules when Hollon (WVWA) & others (Day, Backus, et al.) apparently were on the board had allowed for members of the public to make contested case requests after a decision by the board.
However, some of these very same former board members were responsible for amendments (2007) to the HTGCD rules. The amendments eliminated any ability to administratively protest the board's decision after-the-fact. These rule amendments were made well before the investiture of the current HTGCD board. There is no support in the amended rules for non-applicants to request contested case status after the date of board action on an application.
Hey Jack and David, during the 1950s "drought of record" Jacobs Well did stop flowing, forcing citizens to finance a drag-line cleaning of the well. Maybe if you stop lying to people they would take you seriously.
The other famous lie that they continue to tell is that Jacob’s Well is like a canary in a coal mime warning of danger to the Trinity Aquifer. The fact is that most of the flow from the well comes from the upper Blanco River via faults and underground conduits. Mostly due to Blanco watershed local rainfall. The lie is compounded when Baker says the water in the Well is 2000 years old; from the time of Jesus. If that’s the case there must have been a drought 2000 years ago since the Well is barely flowing right now. Think about it!
The water flowing from Jacob's well was deposited in it 2000 years ago. Because of poor stewardship we have drained all the water that has flowed into Jacobs Well since then. If we have a wet year and conserve water we may be able to drink water deposited in the last year.
@Anonymous 04/10/2011 @ 1:00am,
You said... “The water flowing from Jacob's well was deposited in it 2000 years ago. Because of poor stewardship we have drained all the water that has flowed into Jacobs Well since then. If we have a wet year and conserve water we may be able to drink water deposited in the last year."
How can you make such pitifully ridiculous statements? Were you told that preposterous story by some of the dreamers at the WVWA? Your comments are just what I would expect from the Baker Kool-Aid drinkers of the Wimberley Valley.
First, I’d like to know how you can tell the age of water much less what happened in Hays County, 2000 years ago?
Secondly, Explain how “we have drained all the water that has flowed into Jacobs Well since then”. Most of the time it continues to flow and in 2000 years a jillion jillion gallons has flowed out of it to the Gulf of Mexico.
Thirdly, who drinks water from Jacob’s well? With all the pollution and microbes from dirty people swimming in it along with their dogs crapping around it, you would probably get some fatal disease.
Anonymous @ 4/10 10:03am
I guess you never took any courses in college (if you even went to college) concerning land management or hydrology.
THE HOLY BIBLE, American King James Version
Proverbs 29:18 “Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he”
I appears that Periclese was either guilty of plagiarism or he never said that and it is, as with many other statements from the WVWA, just made up and untrue.
Pericles was born around 490 B.C. I
guess we'll never know whether he
was quoting what we now call Proverbs. But, still, that wouldn't make him a plaigarist; many of us say little snippets from the Bible all the time, and we are not intending for our listener to think we just made
up whatever we said.
Pericles, being a Greek polytheist would not have ever read any form of the Bible, and would certainly have never quoted it. I can only surmise that the attribution was made to be more palatable to some of those on the left that have a certain disdain for anything Biblical.
Anon April 12, 7:50 PM:
I doubt whether many Americans -- liberal or conservative -- have disdain for the Bible.
You assume that monotheists are the only persons who would read the Bible. Even atheists are curious enough to read a book that
has been so influential, and so
Pericles (a polytheist you say) might have read old Jewish texts
that later were included in what we now call the Bible ("the Book").
Haven't you ever read a book with
which you thought you probably
might not agree, just to know
what it says?
Hey “Truth”, You are Wrong! I am the Anonymous of April 12, 2011 7:50 PM and believe it or not, I am a Conservative Atheist and amateur historian. Most of my liberal atheist acquaintances have some measure of disdain for anything to do with the Bible or Christianity in general while none of the Conservatives seem to feel any animosity toward the “Good Book” or its followers. I was just telling it as I see it. God Bless.
Post a Comment