This report focuses on the trends in bonded debt from 2005 to 2011, where bonded debt rose 61.4 percent while population and inflation rose about 33 percent during this time
Note: Looking at the numbers in the report below brings new meaning to the question, "Who wants to be a millionaire?" because that's what it takes to afford things these days. High population growth is pushing the public debt, taxes and tax rates higher and higher. No argument there. However, the time has come to ask some serious questions about how our local elected representatives are handling growth, debt and taxes. Remember, we're in election season and there are several out there asking to be re-elected, as well as challengers.Here are 5 questions we recommend:
1. Is it your policy to a) encourage growth b) by passing the costs straight onto the backs of current residents and taxpayers (water, roads, subdivisions, playgrounds, police and fire protection, etc.)?
2. Do you think growth is paying for itself (it sure doesn't look like it is), a yes or no will do?
3. Do you think taxpayers have reached the saturation point – if not now, when?
4. What have you done lately to try to shift the cost of growth away from taxpayers and more directly on to the developers of new projects (like subdivisions)?
5. Do you favor (have you ever voted for) giving industry and big box stores large property tax breaks (abatements) to lure them to Hays County? (Hint: Tens of millions in taxes are being deferred and guess who is making up the difference).
Answers with long pauses, mumbling or beating around the bush are not allowed.
By Curt W. Olson
COlson@TexasBudgetSource.com
Published Jan. 23, 2012
Read the complete story
The combined debt of local governmental entities in Texas is fast approaching $200 billion. The Texas Bond Review Board has compiled data for fiscal year 2011 showing cities, towns and villages, community and junior colleges, counties, health or hospital districts, public school districts and special districts have $192.7 billion debt. It’s an increase from $183.8 billion in 2010 . . . ISDs have surpassed cities, towns and villages for the total amount of bonded debt.
Data for Hays County, school districts and cities, as of Aug. 31, 2011
Hays County- debt service outstanding: $464.3 million
- tax debt per capita: $1,800
- population: 158,312
Dripping Springs ISD
- total debt: $217.2 million in principal and interest
- tax debt per capita: $5,860
- tax debt per ada (student/average daily attendance): $31,500
- total voted debt service in 2012: $10.6 million
- estimated district resident population: 22,935
Hays Consolidated ISD
- total debt: $531.4 million principal and interest
- tax debt per capita: $6,029
- tax debt per ada: $20,967
- total voted debt service in 2012: $25.7 million
- estimated district resident population: 50,000
San Marcos Consolidated ISD
- total debt: $188.2 million principal and interest
- tax debt per capita: $2,200
- tax debt per ada: $17,500
- total debt service in 2012: $10 million
- estimated district resident population: 53,055
Wimberley ISD
- total debt: $66.7 million principal and interest
- tax debt per capita: $3,200
- tax debt per ada: $18,700
- total debt service in 2012: $2.5 million
- estimated district resident population: 11,050
City of San Marcos
- debt service outstanding: $276.4 million
- tax debt per capita: $4,230
- population: 44,890
City of Kyle
- debt service outstanding: $83.1 million
- tax debt per capita: $2,083
- population: 28,016
City of Buda
- debt service outstanding: $29.7 million
- tax debt per capita: $3,093
- population: 7,295
City of Dripping Springs
- debt service outstanding: $11.6 million
- tax debt per capita: $5,075
- population: 1,788
42 comments:
Ah, the "we were here first" or "protect the people that are here now" nonsense.
Let's be clear about a bunch of things. The "people that are here now" have indebted generations of future residents of the area - and not for the benefit of those future residents. The "people that are here now" absolutely need to bear part of the expense of the growth since the new residents are likewise liable for the debts racked up by the current residents.
Here are 5 questions we recommend:
1. Is it your policy to a) encourage growth b) by passing the costs straight onto the backs of current residents and taxpayers (water, roads, subdivisions, playgrounds, police and fire protection, etc.)?
Contrary to the implications of this statement, the county passes such costs on to the homeowners in all the new subdivisions. This is done by requiring the developer to fund the bulk of the infrastructure costs which are passed on to residents through very high cost lots. The new homeowner gets NO tax relief for paying for fundamental infrastructure. In addition, for at least two decades new subdivisions have generally been required to have an involuntary membership HOA corp burdening all the lots. The developers are immune from paying assessments, but the homeowners are not. The homeowners get stuck with the tab of maintaining all that infrastructure PLUS having to pay taxes.
2. Do you think growth is paying for itself (it sure doesn't look like it is), a yes or no will do?
This is an equivocal question. Growth in what? Growth in government rarely pays for itself. Look at how much is spent on administration within school districts.
3. Do you think taxpayers have reached the saturation point – if not now, when?
The "taxpayers" have reached saturation.
4. What have you done lately to try to shift the cost of growth away from taxpayers and more directly on to the developers of new projects (like subdivisions)?
That has already been taking place for a long time with disastrous results for the residents of those subdivisions. A better solution would be to stop gifting millions of taxpayer dollars to "non-profit" organizations such as WVWA.
Let's also take a closer look at who the anti-growth, self-proclaimed "taxpayers" actually are. You will find that in fact, they are often the recipient of large tax subsidies or pay little to no taxes compared to the residents of those subdivisions.
The county makes considerably more from higher density housing and you aren't going to find the county discouraging cash cows.
5. Do you favor (have you ever voted for) giving industry and big box stores large property tax breaks (abatements) to lure them to Hays County? (Hint: Tens of millions in taxes are being deferred and guess who is making up the difference).
Due to Robin Hood, the local school district isn't going to get those taxes anyway. On the other hand, the county can get sales taxes that would not have otherwise been there.
How about a better proposition:
New #6: Would you support a maximum combined tax rate as a cap for all local government taxes - similar in operation to the state cap for sales tax. No more limitless accumulations of taxing districts. This would force the local governments to squabble among themselves instead of empowering them to simply demand more money for each layer from the residents.
I agree with Anonymous 1.
Privatize everything and get rid of government altogether.
We don't need roads, bridges, schools, and airport safety run by government.
Let the companies TOTALLY pay for their own infrastructure to construct and provide transportation routes to their businesses.
Why should my taxes pay for business profits - or even my health care or my transportaion infrastructure needs to take my kids to school and to go shopping for my food?
In fact, forget using my taxes for sewage and water systems for big developer subdivisions.
I want to keep my taxes so I can just sit in my house and not be able to do anything.
That is what a true conservative should do.
Using the data provided in the article and sorting it by "tax debt per capita" we get this list which puts the Scholl Districts in the spotlight as super debtors in the County. Funny how Hays County's debt, that Sam Brannon is always blaming on Conley, comes in dead last (1/3rd of Hays Con. ISD). All of us that really look our their tax bill know it is the ISDs that are the big spenders and most dangerous to our economy. They take away without adding anything tangible to the economy.
1) Hays Consolidated ISD - tax debt per capita: $6,029
2) Dripping Springs ISD - tax debt per capita: $5,860
3) City of Dripping Springs - tax debt per capita: $5,075
4) City of San Marcos - tax debt per capita: $4,230
5) Wimberley ISD - tax debt per capita: $3,200
6) City of Buda - tax debt per capita: $3,093
7) San Marcos Consolidated ISD - tax debt per capita: $2,200
8) City of Kyle - tax debt per capita: $2,083
9) Hays County - tax debt per capita: $1,800
@ Joe the Taxpayer who said...
I agree with Anonymous 1.
Where?
Privatize everything and get rid of government altogether.
More privatization does not solve the problems that privatization created.
@ Anonymous who said
Funny how Hays County's debt, that Sam Brannon is always blaming on Conley, comes in dead last (1/3rd of Hays Con. ISD).
So in your accounting system, it's okay to burden the taxpayers with more debt because that debt is less than the debt from other taxing entities?
Brannon is correct.
A maximum combined tax rate is an interesting idea and I'm confident we will see it implemented when hell freezes over in an alternate universe.
Anonymous #1, your responses are good cover for pro-development-on-steroids incumbent office holders ala Isaac, Cobb, Conley, Ingalsbe and their developer friends. Unfortunately, they and you are hung up on a stale 19th Century business concept known as Develop or Die.
Fortunately, there is a budding 21st Green Century alternative especially for places like Hays County that says the only way to survive drowning in a sea of waste and sprawl is to SLOW GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT to a highly sustainable and controlled level.
Green people must UNITE and OCCUPY Hays County! Take the high ground. Go GREEN or DIE.
@ GREENie said...
A maximum combined tax rate is an interesting idea and I'm confident we will see it implemented when hell freezes over in an alternate universe.
Anonymous #1, your responses are good cover for pro-development-on-steroids incumbent office holders ala Isaac, Cobb, Conley, Ingalsbe and their developer friends. Unfortunately, they and you are hung up on a stale 19th Century business concept known as Develop or Die.
Where did you see any promotion of development? The article suggested that residents of subdivisions (mandated by the county for all development for quite some time) are somehow not "carrying their weight" from a tax standpoint. The rebuttal was to point out that in fact those residents are paying a disproportionate share of the taxes. Residents of these subdivisions are a cash cow for local government. Local government avoids responsibility for fundamental services and infrastructure while taxing these residents at the same rate it taxes those the county does provide services/infrastructure to.
The infrastructure is often required to be "private" which puts more property on the county tax rolls for taxation AND frees the county from the ongoing cost of maintenance. Those residents are having to pay "assessments" to private corporations in addition to property taxes while folks like yourself continue to suggest that somehow those residents are not paying enough.
This wasn't a debate about development - it was a rebuttal to the false suggestion that citizens in subdivisions were not carrying their weight from a tax standpoint. They carry their weight, plus the developer's weight, plus a portion of yours.
Fortunately, there is a budding 21st Green Century alternative especially for places like Hays County that says the only way to survive drowning in a sea of waste and sprawl is to SLOW GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT to a highly sustainable and controlled level.
The "sprawl" nonsense is truly nonsense. If you had your way, the entire population of the U.S. would be concentrated at Plymouth Rock. If you actually live in a house, was it "sprawl" when your house was built in the area - or only when someone else's house is being built.
Green people must UNITE and OCCUPY Hays County! Take the high ground. Go GREEN or DIE.
Preferably the latter. To facilitate that objective, I suggest that Conley not give another dime of the taxpayers' monies to the so-called "non-profit" organizations. They tend to spend the illicit gifts on lobbying. They usually lobby for more taxpayer dollars to be available for their tax-exempt organization such as by raising taxes on all the taxpayers.
Yeah, let's vote for some more road bond packages also.
Residents were right to vote it down the first time, but got waylaid the next election.
I added up all the PUBLIC DEBT for HAYS COUNTY and came up with a whopping 1.86 BILLION DOLLARS!!! Comes out to $11,800 for every man woman and child in the county at 158,000 population. Saturation? I'll say. What do all the county's so-called conservative Republicans ballyhooing all the time about the federal debt have to say about that?? This is right in their own back yard for Pete's sake and they're in control. LOL
Anonymous #1 coyly asked "Growth in what?" Well duh. You don't talk like you just fell off the turnip wagon, Billy Joe.
This is from a cool website, http://www.costofgrowth.com that can help answer your question.
"Austin’s growth is aggressively promoted by the specific business interests who profit from population growth. Austin’s metro area population, currently about 1.7 million, will grow to 3.3 million by 2035 and the additional 1.6 million people will require 600,000 new housing units. This translates into a $100 billion boon to Austin’s home building industry at roughly $160,000 per unit. But population growth requires massive outlays of taxpayer supplied public infrastructure for schools, roads, water, wastewater, parks, fire/EMS and police stations, municipal buildings, libraries and power. Guess who pays for all of that infrastructure while the profiteers walk away without contributing? Existing residents, that’s who. Taxpayer subsidies of public infrastructure are woven throughout the city budget in a myriad of ways almost no one realizes or will admit. This site is dedicated to transparency about how our tax dollars subsidize growth and increase the cost of living to sky high levels."
I suspect there are a few officials and well to do consultants and developers who are parking some of their investment money in these bonds with a good rate of return and tax free.
It's a little like insider trading. It should be prohibited for public officials who vote on these bonds.
Austin has growth because Austin has jobs.
Hays County has growth because it is too near Austin.
We are simply a surplus population in the eyes of Austin and they do not care what happens to our land or our water.
If we want to retain our quality of life here, we cannot allow urban values and the urban money that lines the pockets of politicians like Conley to make our decisions for us.
Yes, people who live here now are more important than imaginary migrants spinning in some developers head as a cash crop.
Buyers luv you more said...
"I suspect there are a few officials and well to do consultants and developers who are parking some of their investment money in these bonds with a good rate of return and tax free.
It's a little like insider trading. It should be prohibited for public officials who vote on these bonds."
What absurd rubbish! Bonds issues are voted on by the people not "public officials" as you say. Would you suspend voting rights for those officials?
Making such a statement is a right in line with this "Class Warfare" myth that you left wingers are trying to put over on the people. This Marxist mantra is old and tired and intelligent people won't follow it, but that is not the "class" of people you are looking to infect, is it? The left always targets the ignorant masses, primarily the failures amongst us.
The present left wing has become emboldened by having on of theirs in the Whitehouse which is an anomaly we hope to rectify this year.
...
Yes of course, bond issues first go before voters for a yes or no vote and public officials can vote in the election.
If the bonds are approved by the voters they are later financed when they are sold in the open market. Investors purchase the bonds in chunks of $5,000, $10,000, $100,000 or larger. Those investors are the buyers I was referring to. They can earn good returns on those bonds tax free.
My point was it would be interesting to know if any member of the commissioners court, which must approve the sale or issuance of the bonds, has personally profited from investments in these bonds. I believe it is wrong and a conflict of interest. The same goes for school board members and city council members.
@not fooled said...
Hays County has growth because it is too near Austin.
Perhaps - and they don't want to live in Austin.
We are simply a surplus population in the eyes of Austin and they do not care what happens to our land or our water.
The water and land are not "yours". You decide what to do with your own land. As to water, you have a right to access the groundwater beneath your property - just like everyone else.
Yes, people who live here now are more important than imaginary migrants spinning in some developers head as a cash crop.
The "people that are here now" have no greater rights than the people that are here tomorrow or the next day or the next day.
Anonymous on January 26, 7:53 AM says:
"Making such a statement is right in line with this "Class Warfare" myth that you left wingers are trying to put over on the people."
Being a simple ignorant right wing redneck, I agree with Anonymous.
This is not "class warfare." It is simply genetic superiority of the smart vs the dumb. Mediocre right wingers like me are meant to be helpless followers who never succeed at anything very well.
We are meant to be independent lower middle class consumers who pay most of the taxes for the rich who make us think we have a chance to be like them.
Class warfare, my butt. It is simply the natural order of things. Us right wingers are dumb; rich people are not.
Dear School Tax Payer,
When land developers warehouse land they plan to develop by plunking a few cows on the place and then claiming an ag exemption, they get to cut their property taxes drastically. But you, hapless homeowner, make up the difference by paying taxes on your home-sweet-home at a much higher rate.
See if Mr. David Valle (Hays County
chief tax appraiser) will go for this: tell him you are putting a goat in your back yard that you plan to raise and then sell for a profit. Do you think he will grant you an ag exemption for that? No?
Do all these developers who get "ag exemptions" have to show that they actually make some sort of ag profit? If not, they ain't in the ag bidness -- they're just avoiding their fair share of school (and other) taxes.
@ Anonymous who said:
Do all these developers who get "ag exemptions" have to show that they actually make some sort of ag profit? If not, they ain't in the ag bidness -- they're just avoiding their fair share of school (and other) taxes.
You can say the same about the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association (WVWA). Not only are they getting a major tax exemption - the county used taxpayer dollars and bought the property for them.
Totally redundant and totally boring Anonymous says:
"You can say the same about the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association (WVWA). Not only are they getting a major tax exemption - the county used taxpayer dollars and bought the property for them."
Get a life and start contributing something new and intelligent. This is an old problem that is long past being changed.
OCD is not a political strategy.
@Emancipator,
No doubt some would like collusion between WVWA, the DA, and certain county commissioners to be swept under the rug as "past being changed".
The taxpayers out here are in a position to change the makeup of the commissioners court - all still in good time for taking care of this "old problem".
Voters should be aware of the conduct of incumbents while in office before giving the incumbents an opportunity to repeat that conduct to the great detriment of all taxpayers in Hays County.
Commissioner Will Conley is attempting to carry off an absurd charade. Late in his game, he's hoping to paint himself as a friend of the environment. All who have observed him for years know that he never met a land developer or a 10-mile, $111-million parkway that he didn't like.
To all Latter Day Manifest Destiny theorists: Your time is up. To all registered voters: Vote FOR genuine SLOW growth SMART growth GREEN growth candidates. Just say NO to HIGHER taxes! NO MORE PRETENDERS!
The county's debt is one-fourth the total for all these taxing entities. Its debt per capita is the lowest of the group because it is spread across the population countywide. That's nothing to brag about and it makes me feel like an easy target for the county.
That's the problem with casual comparisons... Conley and his gang will probably use this report to argue for more spending and more debt.
Why is it so counter-culture to envision a debt-free or low-debt local government? Are we so eaten up with the "amenity culture" that we're willing to pass debt to our children?
I won't accept the re-election of an incumbent who's willing to borrow $70 million for a new shiny government building, in a flood plain, next to a railroad track, all without voter approval. He would continue to borrow millions to build speculative roads as "economic development" projects. He would continue to use taxpayer dollars to pass directly to private developers. He would continue to appoint convicted felons to Citizen Advisory Boards, and then straight-up deny it when asked.
We need to put Will Conley and Debbie Ingalsbe out of business, and then watch the rest of them shape up.
Perry the BIG LOSER refusenik is constantly harping about big government and the federal deficit. He refuses then takes federal disaster aid, medicaid, education aid, all kinds of aid.
Perry and his republican cohorts in the legislature relish passing the costs of growth to the cities, counties and schools under their no new taxes mantra.
The republican conspirators are hard at work. Code name Operation Water Board the Middleclass. Their aim is to slowly drown low and middle income earners and destroy whatever good government has to offer.
Proof that Will Conley squanders taxpayers' money:
Liz Sumter was Hays County representative to CAMPO when the CAMPO 2035 Transportation Plan was adopted in May 2010. At that time,
Project 25 was approved, at a cost of $24.1 million, to "reconstruct to 4-lane undivided roadway" the section of RR 12 from "RM 32 to
San Marcos City Limit."
Will Conley was our CAMPO rep in
January 2011 when the CAMPO plan was changed to make Project 25 read "reconstruct to 4-lane parkway" (neither "undivided" or
"divided" mentioned). But - SURPRISE! - the cost for the same amount of roadway had ballooned to
$111 million! The cost had gone up
to 4 1/2 times the original amount.
We don't want county commissioners who are essentially building monuments to themselves and aiding their developer buddies in the process.
The next step in the tax subsidy scam will be a big bond issue to pay for imported water into the Wimberley Valley. Watch Conley and Cobb and others push it after Conley and Ingalsbe are re-elected. They will say they are protecting the local economy from future drought.
To Truth or dare,
There's very likely something to what you say about piping water to Wimberley. These facts point to that possible scenario:
Hays County Commissioners Court has a Memorandum of Understanding with Forestar, an investor-owned utility that Hays County may buy many acre/feet of water yearly from Forestar. The water would have to be piped from the groundwater wells that Forestar is drilling in Caldwell, Gonzales, and/or Lee counties. (And, by the way, that water would be even farther from San Marcos than the Hays Caldwell PUA water that will come from eastern Caldwell County. Why did Comm. Court not even consider the invitation from HCPUA to join them, a PUBLIC entity?)
Extra right-of-way along Conley's parkway is being bought. Water lines can be put there.
San Marcos will be facing enormous costs in a few years, when construction on their HCPUA pipeline gets underway. They want to sell water to other communities to help defray their costs, and Wimberley is a likely customer.
It's deja vu all over again for the existing residents of Kyle. The Kyle city council is talking about another big round of increases in the property tax and water rates, up 20%. Plus a road bond election in November. Isn't runaway growth grand?
Pro growth policies by the city's politicians and business boosters are coming home to roost big time on the taxpayers heads. And we ain't seen nothing yet.
There ought to be a Truth In Taxation (TIT) law that gives every resident taxpayer a vote in every major development project that comes before the city. Such as: This project (big box store, subdivision, hospital or hotel) will require XX increase in your taxes and water rates in 3 to 5 years. Vote FOR or AGAINST. Highly interactive and very democratic.
If the city is left to its own devices, I'm afraid the people of Kyle are stepping into a quagmire of spiraling property taxes and water rates for years to come.
The Wimberley Valley must have no illusions that surface water will be our salvation in the future. All the surface water in Canyon Lake is already permitted. In fact, all the surface water in all the river basins anywhere near us is permitted. If surface water were to be piped to Wimberley from an entity that already has rights to it (San Marcos or Kyle, for example), the water would come at a tremendous price.
River authorities such as LCRA and GBRA, having no more surface water to permit, are easing out of the water business and turning to generation and transmission of electricity to make money. LCRA already earns more than 70% of its revenues from electricity -- not water.
There may be a push in the fuutre for the West Travis County Public Utility Agency (WTCPUA) to build a pipeline from Dripping Springs to Wimberley, carrying surface water from Lake Travis. Again, that water would be horribly expensive because of the cost to build and bury the lines, but, more importantly, Lake Travis is struggling already to supply all the straws stuck in it. We could end up with an expensive network with no water in it.
We must preserve and conserve groundwater, and we need an HTGCD which is willing to work for that goal -- which, after all, is its stated mission.
@ Looking Ahead:
Is there irony in the name? If Wimberley had been looking ahead it would not have worked to heap financial rewards on various groups that have done everything they can to prevent water from being brought to Wimberley - including going to other areas and asking local government in those areas to adopt "resolutions" against exporting water to places like Wimberley. Not real smart.
Is your version of "conserve" intended only to apply to everyone else? The city of Wimberley and all those "friends of blue hole" supported planting lots of non-native grasses and trees at "Blue hole" during an exceptional drought. Wimberley then throws 700,000 gallons of treated, potable, groundwater on a measly 1/4 acre of St. Augustine grass to green it up and keep it green over the course of 5 months during this period of exceptional drought. All of this was for aesthetics.
"Conserve" does not mean "no access". "Conserve" means "not waste".
The activists in Wimberley demand "no access" for everyone else while promoting waste themselves. Such hypocrisy.
See www.co.hays.tx.us, then "2008 Road Bond Projects Status," and then "Precinct 3 Projects (Wimberley area)."
The 2008 road bonds issue provided (Project #5) for work to begin "Winter 2011" and be completed "Summer 2011" at the Wimberley Business District. Specifically, the work included "the addition of dedicated turn lanes at the intersection [of RR 12 and Old Kyle Road, near Cypress Creek Cafe], landscaping, and drainage improvements."
Work has not even begun there.
Unlike the I-35 corridor towns and DP, if Wimberley needs surface water, it is already overgrown and it is time for my me and my wife to move elsewhere.
@ Packing Up
Unlike the I-35 corridor towns and DP, if Wimberley needs surface water, it is already overgrown and it is time for my me and my wife to move elsewhere.
What is "DP"?
Other than that, it sounds like you are going to contribute to the "problem" you complain about - just somewhere else. Perhaps it will be a place where only "those that were there before" will be permitted to have wells.
Dear Anonymous 4:29 PM,
Your fine tiny mind, Jon, is playing a broken record. We get it -- actually, we GOT it many posts ago --, that you think everyone in Wimberley wants to have water, but deny it to everyone else. (Wrong.)
Maybe it would set your exploding brain to rest to remember: about 98% of ALL wells in Hays County are for residences and are therefore EXEMPT from regulation by a groundwater conservation district. No one is going to take "your" water away from you. Please stop hammering at us with your fears of that.
Truth be told it's still a lot cheaper to live in Hays County, this is peanuts if compared to Travis or Williamson Counties per capita cost.
We have it pretty good, most of us in Northern Hays County work in Travis County and we take full advantage of their roads and services.
Our taxes and debt are among the lowest in the state for a county next to a major city, yes debt has climbed but we are lucky to live in Hays County, if anything we should be paying more.
@ Calm down!
Apparently you are completely unaware of the actions of individuals in the Wimberley area including David Baker and the WVWA cult, Jim McMeans, your County Commissioner Will Conley, as well as former Commissioners Barton & Ford, former board members of the HTGCD, and Senator Wentworth.
With respect to your comment regarding "exempt" status, all the folks above have tried to either eliminate "exempt" wells or re-define "exempt" to your detriment via legislation.
Among other things, Senator Wentworth's legislation would have removed the residential exemption that you currently have. For the western half of Hays County only, Wentworth also sought to eliminate the 10 acre exemption that citizens in the rest of the county and state enjoy. See:
SB 1901
Senator Uresti proposed a bill to allow the board of a GCD to declare "management zones" within which wells could operate only with a permit. His bill allowed a GCD board to declare any area including the entire territory of the district to be a "management zone". To keep a residential well you would have to get a permit. The activists identified above of course take the position that no permits can be granted because no water is available for permitting. See, SB 274
You are misinformed or just plain ignorant if you haven't recognized that these folks are absolutely actively trying to take away your right to access groundwater. Think twice before you vote for or give money to support any of them because they are working against you.
To Anon, 11:12 PM--
None of the proposed legislation or restrictions you talk about have been enacted into law, have they? You're bringing up straw men to rant about.
The Texas Legislature is not going to do away with the law of capture. Quit talking about situations that don't exist, and probably never will. You're like bad science fiction.
@ Anonymous 01/31/2012 12:36 AM who said...
To Anon, 11:12 PM--
None of the proposed legislation or restrictions you talk about have been enacted into law, have they? You're bringing up straw men to rant about.
They didn't because there are property owners out here watching the antics of these creeps that claim to be representing you. Those that stay informed have to continue going to the legislature to ensure property rights are protected.
When your own Senator is drafting legislation against you, the legislation goes onto the "local and uncontested" calendar because it is a purely local issue. Other legislators are not going to oppose it because it does not affect them or their districts.
The Texas Legislature is not going to do away with the law of capture.
Your ignorance is showing through again. The rule of capture regarding right to capture no longer exists wherever there is a groundwater district in place.
"Exempt" wells do not have the ability to capture all that the owner wants. They are specifically constrained and those constraints are set by statute. There are different constraints among the districts and the exemption level can be changed in any district at any time. "Non-exempt" wells require a permit which may or may not be granted at all. Your claim regarding the "rule of capture" is not borne out by reality. The mismatch between reality and unsubstantiated beliefs is a common problem in the Wimberley area.
Quit talking about situations that don't exist, and probably never will. You're like bad science fiction.
What part of the legislation proposed by Wentworth or your former county commissioners do you not believe? Attend a groundwater district meeting and you'll see some of the same ne'er-do-wells opposing water for entire existing subdivisions.
Contrary to your "belief", the rule of capture regarding access to groundwater was wiped out by in the western half of Hays County a decade ago when the Legislature created the HTGCD. Since that time the aforementioned activists have repeatedly attempted to re-define what constitutes an "exempt" well and also to eliminate exempt wells via additional legislation. No science fiction about it.
To Anon 9:18 Am,
Yes, groundwater conservation districts supposedly have authority over HOW MUCH a residence can pump within that GCD, but the district cannot restrict a residence from HAVING a well. In Hays County private home-use wells can pump up to 25,000 gallons of water a day -MANY,MANY times more water than a family of
15 could use in a day.
Is that enough for you?
Again, all the things you are frantic about are not in effect. I DO agree that citizens must be watchful lest those ideas be made law.
Going elsewhere without a water problem caused by neanderthal property rights nuts and a drought is not adding to the problem.
It is alleviating the problem of having to watch increasingly hostile water wars between the managed growth realists and the blind faith water gluttons.
Life it too short to deal with the free markets nutcases and their crazy water vision. I have the money and sanity to move on if necessary.
Btw, DP stands for Dripping Pigs.
@ Packing Up (still) 01/31/2012 4:39 PMsaid...
Going elsewhere without a water problem caused by neanderthal property rights nuts and a drought is not adding to the problem.
Sure you are. You are increasing both the population and the demand for water in another geographic area by your very presence. This is precisely what you are whining about here. You want to stop "those people" from moving here and using up all "your" water.
It is alleviating the problem of having to watch increasingly hostile water wars between the managed growth realists and the blind faith water gluttons.
Your exodus will have zero effect here - and there aren't any "realists" with respect to "managed growth". The self-proclaimed "managed growth" crowd isn't trying to "manage growth" that occurs, they are trying to prevent it which is absolutely unrealistic.
Life it too short to deal with the free markets nutcases and their crazy water vision. I have the money and sanity to move on if necessary.
The "crazy" ones are those seeking to impose restrictions on "new people" while demanding to be grandfathered in such that the restrictions aren't applicable to the crazy ones. Move on. Maybe you'll be one of those "new people" and a second class citizen as part of a "managed growth plan" in your new location.
Btw, DP stands for Dripping Pigs.
What a charming personality. No doubt you'll be a hit with all the neighbors in your new abode elsewhere. See ya, Charles Montgomery Burns.
Post a Comment