Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Private meetings on major public water issues are 'typical protocol,' says Conley
We are beginning to suspect that this big push for the importation of water is nothing more than a cover for making the Growth Explosion story a self fulfilling prophecy. "You bring the water and we'll bring the growth."
Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story
Update, Thursday April 15 – We finally made contact with Mr. Bagwell. We'll report more on our conversation later. As to how the meeting was convened and who convened it, here's the short of it, according to Bagwell: Kent Acord, member of the board of the Wimberley Water Supply Corporation called Bagwell, for an update on water planning in the region. Bagwell sent Acord information from the Region L state water planning document (pdf). Acord called Bagwell back a month or two later and asked Bagwell to set up a meeting. (That would be Conley's bailiwick). Acord then called Conley who then called Bagwell who then called the parties together for a meeting at Wimberley city hall. City of Woodcreek was unintentionally not included. Mr. Acord, we are informed, was unable to attend the meeting as he was on a cruise in the Mediterranean.
Update, Wednesday April 14 – Second day running, and still no call back from Mr. Bagwell of HDR. Commissioner Conley says Bagwell set up the April 5 meeting referenced below. We're trying to get a confirmation on that and who was invited and attended, since Conley says he doesn't remember who all was on the list.
By Bob Ochoa
RoundUp Editor
Precinct 3 County Commissioner Will Conley yesterday confirmed that he has been holding a series of private and invitation-only meetings dealing with some very weighty public matters.
One set of meetings involves a county water and wastewater study for western Hays County that is nearing completion. The other involves the problems that beset Aqua Texas and its Woodcreek area customers.
An attendee of one of the Aqua Texas meetings held in February recently told the RoundUp, "I thought it was going to be a meeting to help preserve water in the area . . . after the first thirty minutes it was basically a PR (show) for Aqua Texas."
Another attendee at an April 5 meeting on the county water/wastewater study said, "it ended up discussing bringing water supplies to the Wimberley Valley and the various steps that would be needed."
The RoundUp got wind of these meetings in late February and we have since picked up bits and pieces of the discussions held. The latest meeting was held Monday, April 5. Conley says more will be scheduled and they will continue to be held behind closed doors and by invitation only. So don't expect any press releases or an invitation unless you have a VIP pass from Conley.
Will Conley
This is the "typical protocol for when you're working with these types of projects," Conley explained. "We've got a lot of work to do . . . when we get all the information down, then we're going to have a public discussion."
A local official who has heard of the meetings disagrees with Conley's "who needs the public" understanding of the process: "(He) is using county tax dollars. When you are using county tax dollars there's no need for private meetings."
According to Commissioner Conley, the April 5 meeting involved the status of a study being done by the HDR engineering consulting firm of the county's water and waste water needs and infrastructure, mostly in the western region. "I asked the consultant where they were and they said we were at that place where (we could meet), and asked them to put together (a meeting)," said Conley. "We're starting to come down to figuring out what our water needs are for the future . . . we definitely are looking at a shortfall of water to take us into the future."
Conley said once the study is completed (or after all the ducks are lined up, and is presumably followed by a proforma public meeting and comments), then a more serious effort will ensue on finding solutions. "We left the last meeting deciding to (contact) the water development board to see what partnerships we could develop with them and talk to potential water providers to see what if anything they would be willing to do."
We've got a call in to HDR project manager Tony Bagwell (912.5163), to ask for more details about the April 5 meeting and who his firm invited, and did not invite. Conley said he could not remember if the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District – one of the region's most vital sources of information about water supply – was on the list.
The $200,000 water/wastewater study, begun last year, is funded through a $100,000 grant from the Texas Water Development Board. Additional investments of $100,000 were made by Hays County, the cities of Wimberley and Woodcreek, Aqua Texas, both Wimberley and Dripping Springs water supply companies, GBRA, LCRA and Hays City. Clearly, the study is underwritten largely by taxpayer money.
We know that there are certain people in the county (Conley being one of the point men) who are trying mightily to form some sort of regional water entity to import expensive water. Wimberley Mayor Tom Haley has talked about it and so have others. Ostensibly, the reasons are to ease the strain on the over-used Trinity Aquifer (the region's dominant water source), and scary projections of a future explosion in growth in western Hays County – projections that seem to be coming off someone's wall. It's pretty evident growth is occurring at a rapid pace along the Hwy 290 and I-35 corridors, but not so much in the county's interior rural parts. Population projections seem to differ, depending on the source, the area and the motivation.
We are beginning to suspect that this big push for the importation of water is nothing more than a cover for making the Growth Explosion story a self fulfilling prophecy. "You bring the water and we'll bring the growth."
If you look at some basic numbers and other factors and questions, you will see that Conley and his scotch-'n-water klatsch have their work cut out for them: A) The cost of importing water (pipeline construction, transportation, distribution, etc.), say from Kyle, San Marcos or Canyon Lake (per Conley), could run in the range of $20 million to $40 million. B) If it's not a municipally-owned pipeline, no one can be mandated to purchase the water. C) If it's owned by a water company, say Wimberley WSC or Aqua, how will their meager number of customers, 3,000 to 5,000 combined, afford to pay for it? Much higher rates, that's how. D) To make it more affordable for water system customers, will the regional entity force groundwater users off their wells and on to the new system?
Perhaps State Rep. Patrick Rose will help answer some of these questions from his perch in the Legislature. Rose, you will remember, hastily appointed a water stakeholder group during his primary re-election campaign. We haven't heard a peep about it since. And we know that Rose, in his eight years in the Legislature, hasn't met a Big D-development he hasn't liked.
Conley says his private meetings with Aqua Texas President Bob Laughman and other stakeholders such as the City of Woodcreek, developers, "environmentalists," the HTGCD, and representatives from Woodcreek North, have zeroed in on issues like leaky pipes, customer service and rates. "We've had good conversations," Conley reported. "What we're hoping for is that we'll come out with short range and long term solutions that we agree need to be taken, before we stop meeting."
Maybe before Public Official Conley concludes his private meetings, he should get some input from Joe Citizen, seeing as how Joe and the rest of us will be stuck with the outcomes.
We're hoping, too, that while Conley has the ear of Aqua's big cheese, Laughman, he'll try to convince him it is not good community relations for Aqua to continue resisting efforts of our groundwater district to stop needless waste of our limited underground water resources. Aqua remains, by far, among the top wasters of groundwater in the county.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Well said, Bob Ochoa.
I strongly encourage Will Conley to move toward more community transparency and sharing of information with ALL his constituents. It is the only political strategy that will ensure his positive legacy as a community leader.
Honesty and hard work are ultimately the only true true signs of personal integrity and character. In the end they are even more important than competency.
Conley has never been one to really want the public's opinion or help with his agenda, except at election time.
I have watched him balk at the mere notion of a "citizens advisory group" as an unnecessary layer of complication.
He does NOT like democracy and considers it simply obstructionism.
Will Conley thinks elected officials should make all the decisions as that is why they were elected. He has said as much in Commissioners Court.
If you want to have a say in how government is run and how your tax dollars are used and what direction development and policy are headed, never vote for authoritarians like Conley.
You get what you allow to be elected.
Thank you Roundup. This is an eye opener but not surprising. Shame on you Will Conley for thinking you are such a know it all that you can't keep all your constituents informed of the activities of your office. These kinds of issues are way bigger than you. I say stop these private meetings immediately, or I will immediately stop paying my county taxes which pay your salary.
Just a question:
How much "open" do we need in open government?
Does the public need to be involved EVERY step of the way on every issue?
Isn't that why we are supposed to be a "representative" government, so we have reps to represent us and to work in our best interests?
If we are there every step of the way are we not just interfering with the process?
We always have the ability to oversight at the end of all this politics, don't we?
I hope Mr. Conley has many meetings to try to work this out. The public does not need to be involved every step of the way. We elected the whole Comm. court to review this type of agreement. So before agreements such as this becomes law there will be several public meetings and everyone will have a chance to comment. What is wrong with letting the framwork for this get done and then get public comments? Who is your public official that disagrees with these meetings? If you want so much transparency then site your sources. Is ok for the media to site anonymous public sources? These agreements take months of work and when there is a working agreement we will all get to comment.
I can assure you that Will Conley is not doing anything sinister in his meetings. He is trying to get more information from his constituents and the ones that seem most upset over this are just mad because he did not invite them. It is not surprising that the rabid complainers here would not be the people he’d want to hear from. The group of Conley haters on this blog, that constantly criticize his every move are not a cross section of his district and he knows it. He gets elected, doesn’t he?
Interesting post. Transparency, open government, all the things that Democrats like to say we need to have, but once elected they refuse to do it. Find below the link to a story related to our fearless leader's lockout of the media, which is becoming a hallmark of his administration. Where is the transparency we were promised by this hack? If you want to know what I think, there will be a major reckoning of the status quo come 2012 when this guy goes back to the same press he's shunning now and tries to get them to help him win re-election. They will back anyone but him (ABO - Anyone But Obama). Good riddance. Now if I see one Democrat rag on this post because of it being some radical right-wing post then I absolutely will know that you are a bunch liars and hypocrites. How will you be able to sit there and accuse the locals of not being transparent when you won't accuse your own president of the same? Go for it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041303067_pf.html
The very fact that Conley is holding these private meetings with a select list of people tells me he's interested only in select points of view, those that agree with his.
All aspects of water planning and policy development should be open for all taxpayers to participate in, and not just at the tail end when all the deals and handshakes have been made.
These meetings are only a small piece of the larger network of private meetings and discussions taking place to plan a water future for the ignorant masses which the few will profit from handsomely.
Conley and those who support his actions are card carrying oligarchs.
It is interesting how Will's defenders see the requests and demands for his transparency and openness as "rabid complainers" and "Conley haters." These are erroneous labels.
As a democracy, when we elect someone to office, we do not want to just roll over and play dead once our politicians are in office. That is complacency, not representative democracy. Holding Will or any politician accountable is what we must do as citizens. To do otherwise is at worst irresponsible citizenship. Although Will is probably somewhat irritated by these transparency demands, I believe he would ask for the same thing if the tables were turned.
As to the commenter who said that these issues are bigger than the average citizen, Sir, please speak for yourself. Just because he is my CC rep, Will is no smarter than me or many other citizens who are concerned about how our tax dollars are used and how our water is going to be contracted out. If I am going to live in this County I will be involved one way or another. Even being mindlessly passive is in fact making an active choice as a citizen.
I will agree that Will has more information than I do just by the nature of his everyday exposure to the County issues. However, that fact does give him or any politician the inherent right to exclude me as a concerned citizen wanting to participate in the economy of the county to which I pay taxes. That is my money, and I want to have a say in how it is spent.
As voters, sticking to the general principles of citizen involvement is more responsible - at least to me - than simply hoping for the best from our politicians. As we have seen millions of times in the past, such passivity is a recipe for disaster.
Finally, I sure wish the Anonymous commenters would give their name. I bet if such a standard were adhered to in this blog, the level of civility and common purpose would be raised 100 fold. It is much easier to be an Anonymous character assassin than it is to be a constructive or at least mindful contributor to the community good.
Strong opinions are good; veiled anger and snipping is counterproductive. That goes for all political leanings.
It is part of politics as per usual. It's not just Conley, it's most of them.
I again recreate my post to all of who quite easily form your opinions, but prefer NOT dealing with one of the main issues:
Just a question:
How much "open" do we need in open government?
Does the public need to be involved EVERY step of the way on every issue?
Isn't that why we are supposed to be a "representative" government, so we have reps to represent us and to work in our best interests?
If we are there every step of the way are we not just interfering with the process?
We always have the ability to oversight at the end of all this politics, don't we?
It becomes very hard for leaders, political, public education and otherwise, to develop resolutions to issues when there are so many people directly involved in the process.
It would be better for the people to have a say at the start of an issue and at the end, while letting the representatives do the work in the middle and present their results to the people for further resolution.
That's just common sense and I believe it is in the best interests of time and tax dollars spent.
'This is the "typical protocol for when you're working with these types of projects," Conley explained. "We've got a lot of work to do . . . when we get all the information down, then we're going to have a public discussion."'
Why would a public official hold a meeting closed to the public if the meeting subject concerns a study paid for with public funds? What was discussed in the private meetings that Conley wouldn't want citizens to know about. Having interested citizen observers helps to avoid back room deals. With the reputation Commissioner Conley has regarding back room deals (True Ranch and First Baptist Church for instance), you'd think Conley would encourage citizens to attend as observers. The legislature provides galleries for citizens to observe its conduct of business.
Conley won't change his stripes because it would cramp his style to have citizen peering into his private meeting discussing public business.
Will Conley just called me and graciously explained in detail some of the actions he was taking and the meetings he was involved in that Bob Ochoa addressed in his article.
We had a frank and open discussion and it is clear Will Conley reads this blog and will courteously respond to civil and meaningful dialogue.
Kudos to Will Conley for taking the time and making the effort to contact me.
"We had a frank and open discussion and it is clear Will Conley reads this blog and will courteously respond to civil and meaningful dialogue."
Telephone calls to individuals isn't the meaningful public dialogue this blog represents.
And while I appreciate Rocky Boschert and his postings---intermediaries for Conley or for any other elected official doesn't fit my idea of dialogue.
Charles the legislature provides offices to discuss transactions that are private. At least with the commis. ct we have public a hearing that allow comments. At some point you have to give people a chance. I do not agree with much of what out court does but I am realistic enough to know that there has to be a great deal of discussions behind closed doors. If you allow a resident to "sit in" a meeting such as this we will soon have a lynching from people taking things out of context.
Aqua Texas should never have been allowed to gain a foothold in Hays County.
There is NO EXCUSE or valid explanation for Conley holding these PRIVATE MEETINGS. He is a public official, dealing with PUBLIC ISSUES supported by TAXPAYER DOLLARS. There is NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION for meeting behind closed doors, unless it pertains to executive session criteria as defined in the STATE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. At the very least, CONLEY SHOULD INFORM the public of these meetings, the time and place and allow anyone interested to attend and observe. How dare he shut the public out from discussions on these very critical subjects!
But Rocky, that was a pretty trite account of your conversation with Conley.
I have read some of your financial articles and you are a bright guy and generally articulate your thoughts with real fact.
This piece of information you shared are Conley was obtuse, to say the least.
I mean no disrespect, but if you want us/me to take any of that seriously, you will need to define and express your coversation a bit more eloquently and openly.
We can't just take your word for it, can we?
Have any of you noticed the story states that Conley and his "klatsch" have already decided to approach the water development board and "potential water providers"? Who gave them that authority before the study has been completed and the facts and options are presented to the public for comment? Apparently this is all a fait accompli. I sure haven't signed off on it. Conley owes me a major tax refund.
Yea Rocky! Thank you for noticing what others have noticed for years about Charles. He is a pompous ass, and is completely self-righteous, to where everyone else is corrupt, unless you happen to be licking his boots at the moment.
I agree with the anonymous who mentions that too much public involvement may actually interfere with a smooth process; however, he did state that public should have a say prior and after local officials act on the count's behalf. I'll have to agree with all of that.
I also agree with another anonymous that Rocky Boschert's commentary re: his contact from Conley was good and we should all take that as the gospel. No can do.
Behind closed doors, my butt. This stuff leaks out and we are not talking about the formula for the ‘bomb’ or Coke. Conley is just trying to get input from the responsible parties without Joe six-pack jumping in with a bunch of ignorant statements like you see on this blog.
Aqua Texas is currently trying to put lipstick on the pig. Laughman is wooing Woodcreek North (WPOA) with hints of shared franchise fees with the City of Woodcreek. Currently, Woodcreek gets it all since they were the ones that negotiated for it. Aqua will do almost anything to improve their image except fix the leaks in their system. They have received rate increases and funds from the TCEQ to fix the leaks but no one has seen a single truck from Aqua doing anything in their “service” area. The only thing that has chanced there is a few required notices about e-coli being found in the well water there.
Just what Conley can do about any of this is the question. I’m sure he would love to fix all these problems since it inhibits development and is a thorn in his side. Fixing the Aqua problem would please a lot of unlikely bed partners, not to mention insure Conley’s political career.
Anonymous (April 15, 9:48) is right on. There is no right or legal authority for these secret meetings. The issue involves public funds, multi-county regional authorities, and several cities. Clearly, this is a violation of the letter and spirit of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
A new source of water and centralized wastewater treatment in western Hays County will create profound change and ignite growth -- which most residents don't want, but Conley does. His best friend is the point man for Wimberley Springs, which plans a dense (three homes per acre) subdivision that needs water and wastewater to be realized.
To restate as per Anonymous--
There is NO EXCUSE or valid explanation for Conley holding these PRIVATE MEETINGS. He is a public official, dealing with PUBLIC ISSUES supported by TAXPAYER DOLLARS. There is NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION for meeting behind closed doors, unless it pertains to executive session criteria as defined in the STATE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. At the very least, CONLEY SHOULD INFORM the public of these meetings, the time and place and allow anyone interested to attend and observe. How dare he shut the public out from discussions on these very critical subjects!
Post a Comment