"Because the district recently reversed its position, this legislation will not proceed . . ."
Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net
or to Rep. Rose, patrick.rose@house.state.tx.us
__________________
From the comments: " . . . (Rose has) three bills going through the Legislature right now: H.B. 4725; H.B. 4825; and H.B. 2441. Each creates a utility district and —— (everyone needs to be sitting down for this part) —— each district has the power of taxation and one with eminent domain power."Read the comments or add your own by clicking on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story.
Editor's Note: First – a big vote of thanks to Rep. Patrick Rose IF he can deliver HB 3265 (bill analysis, here), a much needed piece of legislation for Hays and our sister Hill Country counties. Also, for the rainwater incentive bill, HB 4299 (bill analysis). At last check, the two bills were still floating around in the House Calendars Committee. Let's see if Rose has the wherewithal to get them out onto the House floor for a vote and through the Senate before the session's end.
Second – Disingenuous is a word often used to describe a politician's rhetoric: "lacking in candor, giving a false appearance of simple frankness." Rose's misleading response below to the difficult issues and circumstances surrounding the Hays-Trinity groundwater district legislation is a case in point.
For brevity sake, here's just one example, and it is a biggie:
Rose says, "This session, the district requested numerous new powers including allowing district employees to enter private property, decreasing the number of grandfathered wells and allowing the district Ch. 36 taxing authority, which would in law allow up to 50 cents per $100 valuation."
What he fails to mention is that our groundwater district board of directors very recently offered a compromise substitute bill to his HB 4796 with this language:
SECTION 1 Prohibits the district from entering property to inspect exempt wells except to review a proposed well site or during well construction. Requires that the District must provide reasonable notice to property owners or property managers prior to accessing property on District business. With full authority of Chapter 36 the District will have the authority to permit and meter single family residential wells and livestock and poultry wells on less than 10 acres. In recognition that this provision of Chapter 36 will cause some existing well owners to be concerned about this bill, this Section exempts wells that are completed prior to June 1, 2009 from metering and permitting requirements but allows the District to remove that exemption when the well is transferred to a new owner. Prohibits the District from using eminent domain. Limits any property tax imposed by the District to 5 cents per $100 valuation. (emphasis in bold - RoundUp)
We are left wondering . . . what constituency is Rose playing to by unilaterally declaring talks for compromise legislation, dead – thus further endangering the health and safety of our aquifer and individual homeowners' wells? Rose leaves the impression there is no time left for compromise. There is. One might conclude that Rose is simply reminding us all that he's still da boss, "and don't you forget that."
_______________________
"Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed."-- Mark Twain
From the Office of State Representative Patrick Rose
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Dear Friends and Neighbors:
Last week, Sen. Jeff Wentworth and I presented legislation relating to the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District (district) before the House and Senate Natural Resources Committees. House Bill 4796 and Senate Bill 2530 would provide the district funding to conduct research needed to protect our groundwater and very important for Hays County families—do so while respecting our private property rights and without raising taxes or creating a new tax.The district, as created by the Legislature in 2001 and approved by voters in 2003 during my first term, is charged with the conservation, preservation, recharge, and prevention of waste of the groundwater within western Hays County.
Compared to other groundwater districts created in Chapter 36 of the Water Code, however, this district's powers, as approved by Hays County voters, are limited. The district contends that its limited authority, especially its inability to charge an ad valorem tax, has severely hampered the district's ability to fulfill its mission.
This session, the district requested numerous new powers including allowing district employees to enter private property, decreasing the number of grandfathered wells and allowing the district Ch. 36 taxing authority, which would in law allow up to 50 cents per $100 valuation. I do not believe that during these difficult economic times homeowners should be asked to pay more taxes on their home and property.
Sen. Wentworth and I expressed our ad valorem tax and property rights concerns to the district's directors and they agreed to work with our offices on a new approach. Sen. Wentworth and I came up with a funding solution and took the directors verbal support as their word. With that agreement to work together, we filed legislation that requires the district to conduct a study of groundwater availability and sustainability, and allows the district to charge a flat, $2 a month groundwater conservation and management fee to finance the study.
The guidelines for charging the fee are restricted and laid out in the proposed law as follows: the fee can only be charged of customers that are served by wells that are pumping over 25,000 gallons a day, the amount of money the fee may collect is capped at $100,000 per year, and the authority to charge the fee ends in 2 years—in time to evaluate a report that the district must submit to the Hays County Commissioner’s Court prior to the next regular session of the Legislature. We do not propose making any changes to the district’s powers and authorities.
Sen. Wentworth and I believe that this is the right step forward for the district and for our community. Unfortunately, after the district's board president committed to work with us to promote and pass this bill, the board later reversed position and passed a resolution opposing the legislation, continuing their push for taxing and greater regulatory authority. The district has said that it needs $500,000 annually to conduct its business. According to documents provided by the district, its current annual budget is at least $148,000. Our legislation would have increased its budget by $100,000 a year--making great progress for the district. Sen. Wentworth and I are not going to promote legislation opposed by the very district we are trying to assist. Because the district recently reversed its position, this legislation will not proceed.
If you are a Hays County resident interested in protecting your water, then you will also want to follow two other pieces of legislation that our office is championing. HB 3265 grants the commissioners' courts of some Hill Country counties, including Blanco and Hays, limited authority to regulate land development in the unincorporated area of the county. If approved by the voters, the county would be allowed the authority to set density of development, building and setback lines, a targeted infrastructure cost recovery fee and restrictions on incompatible land use.
The ability to use these powers is based directly on the desire to protect our limited groundwater, and any infrastructure fees assessed must be spent on road improvements that serve the new development. It is important that we grow in a way that protects our natural resources and that sustains our local economies.
In order to promote smarter, sustainable development and water conservation, we must better utilize rainwater harvesting in the Texas Hill Country. HB 4299 makes great strides in setting standards and guidelines for the use of rainwater so that Texas homeowners are protected, and so that banks are encouraged to work with developers to use rainwater as a real alternative to groundwater.
Both HB 3265 and HB 4299 have been favorably voted out of committee and await debate on the House floor. For more information about any of these bills, or if we can be of assistance on any other matter, please give us a call here at your Capitol office at (512) 463-0647. You can also reach us by email at patrick.rose@house.state.tx.us or by mail at P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX, 78768.
11 comments:
An open letter to my Disingenuous State Representative:
Last week a long-time senator from Pennsylvania changed political parties. Here's reality: the Democrats in your district no longer claim you, and neither do the Republicans- so you can't switch parties.
In this current session you've tried to be "high profile", so that you can make a run for governor someday. You banked on your closure of State Schools bill, which died, and you authored a bill to put the State Board of Education under sunset review, which died today. Defeat after defeat; time wasted.
You have sided with developers on this issue of water. There's no denying that you have ignored the scientic facts our Groundwater Distict has laid out. Our aquifers will go dry as your developer friends and contributors remain unbridled.
Rose, you, sir, are a turncoat on your constituents. We will never forgive nor ever forget. And someday, when you realize this, you will no longer have that smile on your face.
Please Representative Rose. Give us a break. We didn’t fall off the turnip truck.
Representative Rose’s statement (some 800+ words) was designed to dazzle us with BS. In contrast, I will get straight to the point.
Rose says he can’t support taxing authority for the Hays Trinity Groundwater District and he can’t support the idea of District representatives having access to private property.
Give us a break, Patrick. Let’s not pay attention to what you say. Let’s look at what you’re doing.
You’ve got three bills going through the Legislature right now: H.B. 4725; H.B. 4825; and H.B. 2441. Each creates a utility district and —— (everyone needs to be sitting down for this part) —— each district has the power of taxation and one with eminent domain power. In short, the Rose districts not only have taxing authority, they go beyond the right of the district to enter property. The Rose districts have the power to take someone’s property.
Yes, Representative Rose. We’ve decided to stop listening to what you say. We’re paying attention to what you do.
Small wonder the HTGCD pulled back on its workings of Chapter 36; Rose and Wentworth picking away at what is needed, putting in what might please the developers and contributors; possibly John Q Public would not see through these machinations and be pleased that some headway was being made. NOPE!Small wonder Andrew Backus finally
angry and spoke up about this issue in the Wimberley View. You Go, Andrew!!
Rose and his developer buddies are putting the knife in the backs of thousands of well owners in western hays. By doggie, this is grounds for a popular rebellion!
Good job on the HTGCD legislation, Patrick. On the issues, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
"Thanks", from another Hays County property and well owner.
As a member of the district who recognizes that HTGCD has no qualms justifying takings without compensation, intrusion onto people's property without warrants, and many other issues of overreaching, I applaud Rep. Rose's decision to represent the constituents of this area rather than the personal agendas of HTGCD board members.
The legislation that HTGCD initially sought was beyond atrocious. Although HTGCD did propose a bill that was slightly relaxed, it was still overreaching. Also, they didn't want just Chapter 36 powers, they wanted Chapter 36 PLUS powers.
Among other things, they demanded a "transfer fee" payable to the district whenever you sold your property. How long before the school district, ESD, county, etc. hop on that bandwagon and charge you a "transfer fee" because you sold your property?
Interestingly, however, you weren't really being allowed to transfer what you had - HTGCD would change the classification of the residential well to require the next owner to obtain a permit granted at HTGCD's discretion before the new owner could use the well. Why call the "transfer fee" a "transfer fee" when you can't actually transfer what you have - the right to continue using the well? That's called a "taking" without compensation.
Also if you were going to purchase a residence with a well, don't you think you would make the purchase contract contingent upon the grant of a permit? How long is that going to take? Do you want the sale of your home to be contingent upon the whims of HTGCD Board members? Will the appraisal district properly recognize that you can't transfer the residential well or that HTGCD can refuse to grant or to renew a permit? What kind of games will be played between allowing developer-controlled water companies permits and individual residences permits? As it stands now, HTGCD does not wish to allow any well permit if the land owner is located within the CCN of a water utility. That CCN however is granted by TCEQ and has nothing to do with who owns the land. The water utility can be granted a CCN over your land. In other words, HTGCD wants to tell you that you can't have your own straw - you have to buy your water from who they designate.
The Board was also seeking greater rulemaking power - power to decide things purely by Board fiat rather than by a vote of the district residents. As a resident of this district, I am very concerned about giving HTGCD Board members unmitigated power over property - especially if this bill purports to allow them to take without any compensation whatsoever.
Another reason they wanted permits is because such wells have to pay production fees to HTGCD and can continue to operate only at HTGCD's discretion.
Oh yeah, the Board members are presently not paid a salary some of them are nicely compensated in ego. They did seek to change that salary issue and to extend their terms to 4 years. They also sought to require "qualification" of new Board members, whatever that is supposed to mean.
The law in the state of Texas is the "rule of capture" modified by the regulation of groundwater conservation districts. As a landowner, I expect the right to access the groundwater under my property - not to have it usurped and granted to a developer who I am then forced to purchase from.
I'm not asking for the right to abuse the right to capture groundwater but I expect to be able to capture it for domestic use. I certainly don't appreciate anyone trying to force me to have to purchase water from a third party under the pretext of conservation for the "good of the community". What they were doing was taking it from you and giving it to third parties from who you would then be forced to purchase it from.
This district wasn't interested in "regulating". It is interested in taking your well away from you without compensation and forcing you to pay people they award permits to in order to get water to your home.
How about that retroactive prohibition of June 1, 2009 effective Sept 1, 2009 if the bill had passed as HTGCD wanted? Is that what you expect from an above-board organization? Why not a little notice so that existing land owners could at least try to plan?
Also for those who claim HTGCD wasn't going to be able to take property, it already HAS the power of eminent domain. They have all Chapter 36 powers except for those specifically excepted in their authorizing act and there was no prohibition in that act with respect to eminent domain. Eminent domain is authorized by §36.105 of the Water Code.
Rep. Rose's bill did not take any power away from them but did give them money. That may not be what the regime desired, but why reject the legislation and the funds? Frankly, at this point I'm concerned about giving them funds given the powers they keep trying to obtain for themselves. At least we will have two years until the next legislative session where we will have to try to protect ourselves from HTGCD's overreaching.
Rep Rose didn't "side with developers". He recognized the fundamental rights and interests of the individuals in the district rather than the developers and a few water companies who would prefer that you be forced to buy all your water from them.
Thank you Rep. Rose!!!
Amen.
Mr. O'Dell has laid bare Rose's duplicity vis a vis HBs 4725, 4825 and 2442. Thank you for the light, Mr. O'Dell.
Anonymous has laid out the best list I've heard of or seen so far upon which the two sides of the HTGCD legislation can sit down and maybe do some honest and fruitful negotiating. What's up with you people!? Finding the middle ground is a basic element of the art of living. This does not appear to be such a difficult task, unless you are letting personality and bravado block the path. The creator would not appreciate that.
Like some of you, I am a well owner. I am responsible with my water consumption and agree that I don't want anyone telling me what I can or can't do with my inalienable water rights on my little piece of paradise. By the same token I understand my little piece of paradise alone is not what feeds my well. Others out there are not so responsible. Wimberley Water and Aqua Texas are terrible wasters of this life giving resource relied on by so many people in our parts. Somebody ought to slap the managers of these water systems silly for their flagrantly wasteful operations.
Keep the focus on the HEALTH OF OUR AQUIFER, NOTHING MORE.
Throwing chump change at more research (as if the Hays Trinity hasn't already been studied to death) as Rose proposes is an offensive and stupid delay tactic. The boy clearly is more politician than deep thinker.
You all are frustrating the hell out of me with your childish behavior. Get your arses to work! Protect my/our aquifer from waste and abuse! Save our aquifer before it's too late. Our children and grandchildren will curse you if you do not.
I ain't no fool. I've had it with this glamour boy from Princeton who passes himself off as someone who cares about regular folks. He's nothin' more than a kid version of our current lame brain governor.
Rep. Patrick Rose:
You are a major disappointment to the people of the community in which you were raised.
What happened to you over the years? Look out better for your neighbors!
Wow, a politician that respects private property rights! Why are so many individuals here, so quick to set limits on the rights of others? Don’t we have enough government control of our lives already? Thank you Rep. Rose, you are on the right side of this issue and I don’t care what party you belong to.
Post a Comment