Monday, January 18, 2010
Trinity Aquifer still unprotected
Comal County Commissioners voted Thursday to tell TCEQ they would prefer to form a district with Hays and Travis counties
Note: Thanks to alert citizen Susan Cook for forwarding this story from the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung.
Read the whole story at this link: http://herald-zeitung.com/story.lasso?ewcd=aa8fb566027af083&-session=HeraldZeitung:443CA99F02bca079ECXUO15E10A3
Published January 12, 2010
Comal County Commissioners recommended forming a new three-county groundwater conservation district on Thursday, as they continue to work with the state to protect water within the Trinity Aquifer.
Almost two-thirds of Comal County sits atop the Trinity, and those areas are the only piece of the Hill Country that lack a conservation district to manage and protect water resources.
Groundwater conservation districts were created by the state legislature to manage usage and monitor both the quantity and quality of underground water in Texas. The portions of Comal over the Edwards Aquifer receive protection from the Edwards Aquifer Authority.
Comal County officials have lobbied for the creation of a local district for the Trinity since the 1990s, with voters twice rejecting it at the polls by large margins in 1995 and 2001.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Of course citizens want a water management and conservation entity. Only the real estate development interests and their bought & sold politicians tell us we don't.
Oh yes, I guess there are those fearful free markets at any costs voters who don't want water conservation. They complain about taxes and "liberal do-gooder bureaucrats" but are willing to be ripped off by water companies - just to rigidly prove their free markets mindset.
I believe in free markets too. But not the kind where some out of state corporation rips me off through high water rates and refuses to spend money on maintaining their infrastructure (wasting precious water) - because they have to please their institutional shareholders
Let smart water experts help us citizens with water issues and have representation from all the special interests. At least we are keeping it local.
How does that equate when one of the local WSC's is a locally owned entity? If they don't spend money on upgrading infrastructure that is over 40 years old, is that because they are beholden to their "institutional shareholders", who happen to be the people who pay the water bill every month?
How about the problem of the "citizens" who supposedly "want a water management and conservation entity"? The vote was held to create this proposed district, and apparently in the Comal County area has lost significantly at the polls not once, but twice! Surely the politicians and the mean-old developers aren't the only ones voting are they? You mean that maybe the free-thinking citizens of Comal County could possibly not want to jack with another level of bureaucracy? Get a grip, and keep the arguments logical and in line with reality. It is too easy to blame the straw men that are typically taken to task, the politicians and the water corps. But in this particular instance it appears that the good citizens of Comal County have decided to forego the route many others have taken.
Anon 2, what are you smoking dude? We're talking about our water source here, not how to win the Best Jackass contest.
Thank you, Anonymous 1, for your opinions. But what is your real point? That even publicly-run water companies do some of the same things the for-profit water companies do? Of course they do. But not nearly as brazenly or as recklessly as the for-profit water companies. Some corporation in Pennsylvania or wherever doesn't care anywhere near as much as WSC or others like it. We know who operates and manages most of those regional entities. Do you know who manages Aqua America?
As far as local voters go, you assume they vote from a place of being informed. I seriously doubt it. I'm no expert on water management but I know enough to see that voters regularly react to fear tactics, and yes, free markets rhetoric. I always ask "who has the money to influence their decisions?" It is usually the parties who have the most money to put out a lot of false information and profit from their trusting but ill-informed decisions. Maybe another level of sound thinking water bureaucracy is exactly what Hill Country residents need. In this regard, you should "get a grip" on voter reality.
Also, if you actually read my point about the free markets/corporation comments, I stated that any publicly-run or managed water entity (or even an advisory body) needs to be represented by all the special interests -- by mandate. That includes developers, consumer/homeowners, etc.. Then, they can all see each other face to face – where all the local interests are more likely to work together to benefit the most people.
Unfortunately, free markets proponents too often are so caught up in defending this black and white vision of life that many are not able to see the forest behind the trees. Personally, I don't know how anyone would think a balanced and local expertise "planned growth" approach to our water is not the best approach. Regarding your water, do you prefer probable private sector exploitation (talk to people in Woodcreek or Mountain Crest near Wimberley) over a possible and sensible citizen-focused bureaucracy? The latter is a risk worth taking, in my opinion.
Finally, in most cases, I always prefer private, for-profit companies (hopefully local or regional) to buy my goods and services from. But in the case of water, I will never, if possible, allow a for-profit company to monopolize the distribution of my water. As things stand now in Texas, the regulators are controlled by the private money, not by the homeowners who use the water. The regulators cannot be trusted anymore.
In the end, water is now too important to allow us in the Hill Country to get bogged down in this old and tired debate. You, Sir, can choose to live where a Wall Street concern runs, operates and makes decisions about your local water. I will not. That is real free choice and free markets.
Post a Comment