The Occupy students’ draft statement catalogs a list of grievances with the university: tuition increases “such that lower- and middle-class students can no longer afford to attend”; students accruing massive student loan debt . . . and an administration that “has leveled no serious rebuke against the legislature" by demanding the re-regulation of tuition . . .State Water Plan: It appears San Antonio area State Rep. Roland Gutierrez is one of the first out of the bag to comment on the newly released 2012 Texas Water Plan. You can download the 310 page plan, produced by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), at this link: http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/wrpi/swp/swp.asp. A one month public comment period ended on Oct. 26, 2011.
The plan goes into considerable detail about present water sources, projected shortages, future needs, recommendations and associated costs – estimated statewide at $53 billion through 2060. For Water Planning Regions K and L, in which Hays County is located, the price tag is estimated at nearly $7 billion. Thus the questions going forward for Texans and Central Texans will be not only "Got Water?" but also, "Got Money?" The Hays-Caldwell Public Utility Agency, in which the cities of Buda, Kyle and San Marcos have teamed up to acquire and pay for future water supplies got this brief mention in the Region L summary: " . . . would provide up to 33,314 acre-feet (over 10 billion gallons) per year of groundwater (Carrizo Aquifer) in 2060 with a capital cost of $308 million."
Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, click on the story links or click on the "comments" at the bottom of the post
Here are excerpts from a press release issued today by Rep. Gutierrez (phone 512.463.0452):
Late yesterday, The Texas Water Development Board ... released the 2012 State Water Plan calling on Texas Legislators to lift current restrictions on the transfer of surface water from one basin to another.
TWDB concedes that even with the aggressive 2012 plan to conserve and find new water sources, that with the current restrictions, the greater San Antonio area will not be able to meet its growing needs. "We need a fresh approach to our water provisions as a state."
Other recommendations of the 2012 Water Plan include creation of new reservoirs, increased water loss audits, and sustainable financing for water projects.
– Other News –
San Antonio Express-News | By Brian Chesnoff and Clay Thorp Wentworth sparks residency battle in state senate race (Jeff Wentworth represents Hays County in the Texas Senate) Jan. 5, 2012 – When she filed last month to run for the state Senate, Texas Railroad Commission Chairwoman Elizabeth Ames Jones swore she was a resident of San Antonio. The state Constitution, however, requires that railroad commissioners “reside at the capital of the state during (their) continuance in office.” Now, state Sen. Jeff Wentworth, her opponent in the Republican primary, is accusing Jones of violating the Constitution by holding onto her office while claiming to live in both places at once.
Buck Wood, a 30-year ethics and elections attorney in Austin, said Jones has a problem. “You can't have it both ways,” Wood said. “The constitution fixes your residency in the capital of the state. She's either ineligible to run against Wentworth, or she's got to resign as railroad commissioner in order to change her residency.”
The Texas Tribune | By Reeve Hamilton UT-Austin prepares for fight over tuition increases (Jan. 5, 2012) – A group of students taking their cues from the Occupy movement wants the University of Texas System regents to know they won’t take tuition increases without a fight.
At a meeting in front of UT’s iconic tower tonight, the students will settle on a final version of a protest document they hope sparks a larger pushback against the growing cost of higher education . . . recommendations (by UT's governing regents) will mean an extra $127 for in-state students in the coming academic year and $131 in the next. Leaders at UT argue that increases are necessary to avoid immediate cuts to crucial programs.
Buck Wood, a 30-year ethics and elections attorney in Austin, said Jones has a problem. “You can't have it both ways,” Wood said. “The constitution fixes your residency in the capital of the state. She's either ineligible to run against Wentworth, or she's got to resign as railroad commissioner in order to change her residency.”
The Texas Tribune | By Reeve Hamilton UT-Austin prepares for fight over tuition increases (Jan. 5, 2012) – A group of students taking their cues from the Occupy movement wants the University of Texas System regents to know they won’t take tuition increases without a fight.
At a meeting in front of UT’s iconic tower tonight, the students will settle on a final version of a protest document they hope sparks a larger pushback against the growing cost of higher education . . . recommendations (by UT's governing regents) will mean an extra $127 for in-state students in the coming academic year and $131 in the next. Leaders at UT argue that increases are necessary to avoid immediate cuts to crucial programs.
12 comments:
UT students have a long history of protesting things. At one point, in the 40's they paraded around campus with a coffin claiming academic freedom was dead. In the 60's they tried to occupy the Capitol. UT students protesting things is not new news by any stretch of the imagination. I am no friend of UT and its admission policies which often favors those from out of the state to get the right mix of students on their campus. Their admission policies have alienated many potential students and supporters. I do not have any sympathy for the students in this matter. Everyone is having to deal with higher prices. For them to be exempt is arrogance on their part. In terms of middle class students not affording it, then UT needs to change its admission policies to allow more Texas students to attend the University of Texas. If they want to continue having pride in calling themselves the University of Texas, they may need to start acting like they take pride in local Texas students and admitting them.
To "Not a UT fan":
You sound like someone who didn't
get admitted to UT....
My concern is that if the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) begins to allow transfer of surface water from basin to basin, then the transfer of groundwater (opposed by a local Groundwater Conservation District [GCD]) will not be far behind. This very case is being decided in the Bastrop area right now, where the local Lost Pines GCD opposes the raiding by pipeline of its aquifer by cities as far away as San Antonio (which water-needy city Rep. Gutierrez is from).
I think it is ludicrous to have restrictions on transferring surface water or groundwater fro that matter from place to place. Water is not always in great supply in areas the need it most. The "no growth" crowd uses this as their method of preventing water supply in areas they think are sacred or something like the Wimberley Valley. That valley is only in the last ten years or so, seeing some major growth mainly since there is little room anywhere else to go. That crowd first used protecting groundwater and Jacob's Well as their cause, now it is surface water that they fear. This exposes their real motive, no growth.
I think the TWDB is being realistic and hopefully will continue to turn a deaf ear to the naysayers such as McMeans, and his tribe at C.A.R.D. and Baker and his minions over at the dilapidated County supported WVWA.
College tuition has been allowed to rise over 2000% since the 80's. I know of nothing else in our economy that has done this.
Part of the reason is the lack of money given to state universities by the State of Texas and this is not the way it was supposed to be.
The oil-rich lands west of here are supposed to fund these schools, but something is amiss.
The other problem is the ease with which student loans are obtained, deferring the real pain of these overpriced educations until graduation.
Back when tuition was $200/semester, plus some fees rather than the $4500 I just paid this past week to attend UT, parents and students were both aware of these costs, because they were simply paid out of pocket.
Nowadays, one just hits a button on a website that says, "Pay with Financial Aid". No pain, no awareness of what you just did.
In my humble opinion, education at at a state university should be free for the student. This is an excellent use of public funds: the nurturing of a knowledgeable society who can use critical thinking to solve our problems.
I think somebody has a crush on Jim McMeans.
Is that YOU, Richard?
Your obsessions are showing.
Without serious restrictions on water transfers, towns near large cities could literally be sucked dry to accommodate overpopulation and poor development planning.
This is neither right nor fair.
Small towns and villages should have a right to exist and to protect their water supplies.
Metropolises need to tone it down.
One rigid Anonymous says:
"The "no growth" crowd uses this as their method of preventing water supply in areas they think are sacred or something like the Wimberley Valley."
When are you ignorant free markets types going to stop labeling everyone who disagrees with your polluting and natural resource depleting vision of America as "no growth?"
All we are saying is to slow down a bit and give the economy a chance to absorb the housing that currently goes unoccupied and to curtail the big sucking sound of the region's water.
In reality it is your unfettered growth mindset that is screwing up the US economy.
I'm with you UT student.
Our state constitution's guarantee of a "free" public school education is a bad joke now.
Millions of kids wanting to just get ahead, join the "American Dream", are being forced to take out huge bank loans and government loans with interest.
How can they ever get ahead with 50,000, 80,000, 100,000 loans to repay? Forget about early retirement. The next big wave will be early bankruptcy.
I think the "American Dream" today is only available to the rich the corrupt and the private banks doling out student loans. Pretty crazy.
It's more than time for Will Conley to go. Democrats should vote in the Republican primary for a candidate opposing Conley (at present that's only Sam Brannon). And any civic-minded Republican will vote against Conley also.
We're in an ABC (Anyone But Conley) situation.
Yes, Will Conley is a disgrace and a self-serving politician in the Patrick Rose tradition.
It doesn't seem to much matter what political party one is affiliated with, when you put greedy, arrogant people into office, you get what you pay for.
Conley thinks he is smarter and stronger than the people he was hired to serve.
High time to show him it ain't so.
It is hard to believe that some people really believe that we should just have a bunch of babies, run up the population and "saturate" every square inch of the countryside.
Like locusts?
This isn't "natural", it is like binge eating and getting too fat.
Everything has an optimal size and it is wise to think about what that is before you exceed it, not afterwards.
Post a Comment