Search Results

The Quest to End Two-Party Rule: Part 3 “We build too many walls and not enough bridges.” – Sir Isaac Newton In a Part 1 of this blog , I suggested that there were three aspects that should be considered as we engage in our quest to end two-party political rule: 1) an elaboration on the nature of the Opportunity (Part 2) that lies before us, 2) an identification of the Barriers to change that stand in our way, and 3) a list of possible Strategies that might be considered as we develop plans for successfully bringing about change. In this installment … The Barriers Voters have the ultimate responsibility for allowing the old party duopoly to remain so firmly in-place. Despite extreme voter dissatisfaction with the two major parties, however, fewer than 6% of votes were cast in 2016 for presidential candidates other than Trump or Clinton. That same year, 97% of US House incumbents and 93% of US Senate incumbents were re-elected. Over half of Texas’ legislative races in 2016 had a single candidate on the ballot. Nearly 2/3 had only one major party candidate, meaning that only 1/3 of Texas’ legislative races were effectively contested. Duopolistic thinking is firmly entrenched in most voters. After the last presidential election, many Democrats even complained that those who voted their conscience for an independent or alternative party candidate somehow wasted their votes and threw the election to Trump. Barrier #1: Voters continue to strongly buy into the “wasted vote fallacy” that there are only two viable election choices. Millennials (aged ~22-37) make up a significant voting bloc, roughly 27% of the voting age population . Younger voters are less prone to identify with either of the major parties and, in general, are more open to change. But they self-report that only about half vote. This compares to around 70% of those older than 55. Some combination of apathy and disillusionment seem to be keeping so many young voters unengaged in elections. Barrier #2: Younger voter apathy and discontent cause them to vote at levels significantly lower than older voters. Gerrymandering, first-past-the-post plurality voting, taxpayer-funded primaries, one-punch straight-ticket voting, Federal Election and Texas Ethics Commissions appointed by those already in power, and statutory ballot access restrictions are only a few of the ways that governments lock in shared two-party political power. Duopolistic control of the legislative and executive branches of government remains strong – and resistant to altering the status quo. Redistricting (done by political parties in power) ensures as many non-competitive districts as possible, effectively dividing up the spoils between the two old parties. This enhances the incredible advantages that incumbents of both major parties continue to hold. For an excellent discussion of the history of ballot access in the US, read Death by a Thousand Signatures: The Rise of Restrictive Ballot Access Laws and the Decline of Electoral Competition in the United States by Oliver Hall, director of the Center for Competitive Democracy. It’s an eye-opener. Barrier #3: Unnecessarily restrictive statutory barriers to alternative candidates and parties have been erected to protect the interests of the duopoly. Modern campaigns have become amazingly expensive, especially in large states such as Texas. Because governmental actions increasingly impact commercial interests, many feel compelled to try and influence those actions by providing the financial and organizational support that has come to define modern political campaigns. Because money is fungible (and always seems to “find a way”), fixing campaign finance ( e.g ., reversing the Citizens United US Supreme Court ruling) is likely to do nothing to improve our politics unless the two-party power-sharing duopoly is also dealt with. The two major parties also have a “big data” advantage. Important campaign tools, such as lists of supporters and donors and historical voting records, are prohibitively expensive for independent or upstart political movements to replicate. As populations (and data) grow, the duopoly’s competitive data advantage will very likely increase, much as it has in the commercial marketplace with firms such as Google and Amazon. Barrier #4: The duopoly parties vigorously guard the barriers to entry that stem from their huge financial and organizational advantages. With special constitutional protections, the press has a role as our (theoretically independent) governmental watchdogs. Yet the media stand by as the duopoly parties dictate debate terms and collude to exclude competitors from even a modicum of coverage. And even as they deplore excessive money in politics, the press continues to treat candidates with small campaign budgets as insufficiently serious. The mainstream media may be too enmeshed with the duopoly to change their ways. Their financial interests, if nothing else, may be threatened by “breaking the rules” effectively dictated by the two duopoly parties. Given the competitive nature of their industry, larger media outlets may simply be too easily manipulated to be sufficiently independent. Barrier #5: Media that effectively supports and protects the duopoly through its coverage of election campaigns. These are seriously difficult barriers to overcome – and there are many more that others have suggested . In the next (final) blog I’ll discuss a few strategies to begin thinking about. Mark Miller Dripping Springs, TX Miller serves on the Advisory Committee of the League of Independent Voters of Texas. Visit our our Board page for more about Mark and the rest of us at LIV. #CenterforCompetitiveDemocracy #OliverHall #duopolisticcontrol #twopartysystem #MarkMiller

Who Will Debate Prop A on Vista Ridge? Tuesday, October 16, 7 – 8 pm, Pan American Golf Association Clubhouse 2300 Avenue B, San Antonio 78215 For details, visit our Event Page Here Or invite your Facebook friends from here. Leading Water Attorney Agrees to Debate FOR Prop A Because of Vista Ridge; SAWS Chairman Berto Guerra Declines to Debate PROP A, Mayor Nirenberg now invited! At Tuesday’s San Antonio Water System (SAWS) board meeting some things happened that made Prop A far bigger an issue than is being discussed yet in the battles between the Vote Yes and Vote No campaigns aflame in the city of San Antonio. SAWS moved the largest water project in Texas history—the behind schedule $3.4 billion Vista Ridge, 142-mile long pipeline, closer to meeting its 2020 deadline. Meanwhile, SAWS trustee, Mayor Ron Nirenberg, was absent when the board voted for 81 million dollars worth of Vista Ridge related construction contract awards. Members of the League of Independent Voters (LIV) hoped that someone – perhaps the Mayor — might mention the two articles in the Rivard Report about SAWS recently rejecting a low bid contract for one tiny portion of the Vista Ridge Project and awarding the contract to a company which proposed to be paid $16.6 million more for the same amount of work. Instead of taking his trustee chair and questioning the SAWS recommendation to award to the high bidder or revisiting SAWS CEO Robert Puente’s recommendation to fight the ensuing lawsuit which names city council members as well as the San Antonio Water System, the Mayor was out stumping to defeat Props A, B and C. Ellen Berky, a San Antonio architect who started fighting Vista Ridge in 2014 alongside those living over the Simsboro aquifer in Burleson county, recently joined the board of the League of Independent Voters. The League advocates for groundwater and eminent domain policy reform and protection of the first amendment right to petition. Berky said: “San Antonio citizens across the political spectrum opposed Vista Ridge because it is massively expensive and thoroughly flawed project that will take us in reverse on San Antonio’s exemplary history of water conservation. Plus, who really supports taking someone else’s water other than those who have most to profit from this 3.4 billion dollar boondoggle? But the real estate lobby and its henchmen in the public realm have the city so thoroughly divided it’s like Chinatown (the movie) except without the sex and mayhem. Actually, strike half of that. We have got mayhem – just not intelligent and informed debate. If San Antonio had the right to petition as provided in Proposition A, perhaps we would have had a public vote in 2014 and avoided all this madness.” On Tuesday, at the SAWS meeting, Berky asked SAWS Board of Trustees Chairman, Berto Guerra, who had donated $25,000 to the “Go Vote No” campaign, to join a LIV sponsored debate on Prop A with one of the top water attorneys in Texas — James Murphy.  Berky followed up with this formal letter of invitation . Berky received this short letter the next day from SAWS CEO Puente declining the invitation to Guerra: Ms. Berky, We are in receipt of your letter to Chairman Guerra dated October 9, 2018, regarding an invitation to debate the pros and cons of Proposition A.  Chairman Guerra is aware of your request and formal invitation.  Unfortunately, Chairman Guerra is not available to participate in this event. Sincerely, Robert Puente SAWS CEO, Robert Puente, is the most responsible person besides the Mayor and city council, for the continuation of the Vista Ridge Project. Despite its many setbacks, costs to ratepayers, and the disgust of targeted landowners living some 142 miles away, CEO Puente presses on while the Mayor and Council look the other way. James Murphy is working with landowners and ratepayers across the state to make clear to legislators that: “2019 is either the year Texans accept a failed and dangerous model for groundwater – that of California – or we remember that Texas is our Texas, not a place for fools’ gold. California has come full circle and is now struggling to reverse over 50 years of decisions that have the state reeling in water crisis. Texas cannot go down this path and certainly not SAWS ratepayers who happen to live in one of the poorest cities in the country.” One of the spokespersons for the Yes campaign, Reinette King, said, “If we pass Prop A this November ‘we the people’ will have a voice in matters people across our community are upset about such as the city giving away the land under the Cenotaph and the Alamo.  Some things cannot wait until it is time to elect a new council.” ( more info here ) Linda Curtis, a founder and spokesperson for LIV who lives over the aquifer targeted by Vista Ridge in Bastrop, said: “Prop A isn’t for any one group or interest, including the Firefighters. It is truly a gift from the Firefighters to the citizens of San Antonio to empower them to check and balance their local government.” The event will take place with or without an opponent of Prop A. LIV is extending invitations to Mayor Ron Nirenberg, Christian Archer (the campaign manager for Go Vote No) and anyone who can credibly claim they can debate the pros and cons of Prop A and Vista Ridge. The Prop A debate will be followed by a debate watch of the contenders for US Senate, Representative Beto O’Rourke and Senator Ted Cruz. The flier for this event is posted here . # For more information: 512.657.2089 call or text to reach anyone quoted in this release. #LindaCurtis #BertoGuerra #EllenBerky #propA #petitionrights #RobertPuente #SAWS #ReinetteKing #JamesMurphy #SanAntonioMayorRonNIrenberg

The Quest to End Two-Party Rule: Part 2 “The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower In a previous blog , I suggested that there were three aspects that should be considered as we engage in our quest to end two-party political rule: 1) an elaboration on the nature of the Opportunity that lies before us, 2) an identification of the Barriers to change that stand in our way, and 3) a preliminary list of possible Strategies that might be considered as we develop plans for successfully bringing about change. In this installment … The Opportunity We are clearly in an era of extreme voter dissatisfaction. Already at historic lows, the voting public’s opinion of US electoral politics continues to sink. The last Presidential election featured two of the most disliked major party candidates of all time. Voter turnout in 2016 was only 55%. Dissatisfaction is leading voters to identify with neither of the two old establishment parties. 42% of American voters (50% of Millennials) now self-identify as independents – a record number that is larger than with either major party. Opportunity #1: Citizens who don’t vote, along with independent voters. The candidacies of outsiders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were driven by high voter dissatisfaction – from both ends of the political spectrum. Voters want change. The rise of both left and right populism in the US and elsewhere is driven by widespread beliefs that the establishment parties are not serving us well. Dissatisfaction with duopoly candidates in 2016 also caused a significant surge in attention for alternatives. Non-duopoly votes for President were nearly 6% of the total, by far the highest since Ross Perot last ran in 1996. Some non-duopoly candidates received significant numbers of votes in individual states – the highest being Evan McMullin in UT (over 20%). In six states (UT, ID, VT, AK, NM, OR, WA), non-duopoly votes exceeded 10% of the total. Opportunity #2: Voters looking for alternatives to candidates that have historically been nominated by the two major parties. Though we often focus on presidential and gubernatorial elections, perhaps the biggest “bang for the buck” might come by electing non-duopoly candidates to state and/or federal legislatures. This might be particularly true in those many legislatures, such as Texas’, that have effectively become dominated by one party. As few as 10% of an elected body without major party allegiances could become the deal-makers that help us get past partisan gridlock. Opportunity #3: Election of a small number of non-duopoly representatives and/or senators could have a significant effect on legislative polarization. A rural/urban divide seems to also be increasingly driving our politics. In the 2016 Presidential election, most of Texas’ large urban counties voted Democrat. Trump received Texas’ presidential electors because of his overwhelming (70+%) support in the smaller rural counties. If Texas had consisted of only the 37 counties that make up 80% of its voters, Clinton would have won the state. Maps of the last presidential vote results show that the rest of the country appears as geographically divided as Texas. Opportunity #4: Candidates with platforms who can effectively address the common concerns of both rural and urban voters. Taking advantage of voter concerns will undoubtedly be a challenge given the immense barriers to change that have been erected in our political system (to be addressed further in Part 3 of this series). But there are a few cracks in system that might give alternative parties and independent candidates a toe hold. For one, Texas is scheduled to eliminate the one-punch straight-ticket voting option starting in 2020. In the runup to the 2020 elections, we might expect many elections officials and others to embark on programs to educate voters about the coming change. Eliminating the one-punch option will obviously not prevent voters from voting straight-ticket. It could, however, have positive effects for electoral competition, particularly in down-ballot races. It certainly is an opportunity to educate voters about their options. Opportunity #5: Elimination of one-punch straight-ticket voting provides an opportunity to educate voters about their voting options. In the 85th Texas Legislature, the Texans for Voter Choice coalition managed to get a bill considered ( HB 3068 ) that would have significantly improved ballot access for independent candidates and minor parties by establishing more reasonable ballot access and retention requirements. Though the bill failed to get voted out of committee, there was little opposition to its provisions at hearing. In the 86th Texas Legislature (2019), Texans for Voter Choice coalition will again pursue this legislation. Opportunity #6: Legislative and/or legal action that would improve ballot access for alternative parties and independent candidates. In addition, politically-driven gerrymandering is increasingly being challenged in the courts, including in Texas. Though both major parties resist alternatives to partisan gerrymandering, the egregiousness of this practice is causing increased legal scrutiny that could result in less distressing gerrymandering practices. Opportunity #7: Legislative and/or legal action that could decrease the deleterious effects of gerrymandering on electoral competition. In the next installment of this blog, we’ll explore the barriers that will need to be addressed in our pursuit to diminish two-party rule. #MarkMiller #TexansforVoterChoice #Trump #twopartyrule

Landowners marked a big map with a pin pointing to their water well Bastrop Landowners rally to protect their wells from water grab by LCRA “Mega-Permit.” Michele Gangnes, of the Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund spoke to over 200 Bastrop and Lee County residents in two consecutive meetings at the American Legion Hall in Bastrop, September 13th. They learned the issues and strategized how to defend their well water from LCRA and other water pirates planning big export wells in the precious Simsboro Aquifer. The event was co-sponsored by Friends of Bastrop Water . Environmental Stewardship Executive Director Steve Box confers with concerned landowners Phil Cook and John Watson Environmental Stewardship Executive Director Steve Box confers with concerned landowners Phil Cook and John Watson as they study new maps of groundwater drawdown throughout the Bastrop area that will be caused by LCRA. The urgency is a September 26th public permit hearing by the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District (LPGCD) to review a 25,000 acre-foot/year (AFY) application by LCRA to mine water for unspecified future use throughout its service area – clearly outside of Bastrop. The LCRA permit public hearing is at 7:00PM at the Bastrop Convention Center, 1408 Chestnut St. Please come out and support the rights of Bastrop landowners to protect the water under their homes and ranches. If you are a landowner near the Griffith League Ranch – with or without a well – you can file an objection to the LPGCD by September 21st. LCRA’s Goal LCRA’s goal, according to General Manager Phil Wilson is, “in addition to providing drinking water for residents, the water could be used throughout our Central Texas service area for manufacturing, irrigation and power production.” LCRA was created by state legislation in 1934 to for “the control, storing, preservation, and distribution of the waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries within the boundaries of the authority for irrigation, generation of electric energy and power, and other useful purposes.” It has always had the responsibility for managing river water. Clearly LCRA wants to get into the lucrative groundwater development business – though its charter is to manage the surface water of the Colorado River. LCRA already has four large wells at its Lake Bastrop power plant to supplement their needs – and, incidentally, allow LCRA to sell more of its river water elsewhere. LCRA’s lakeside groundwater claim is up to 10,000 AFY. Other than the swap plan at Lake Bastrop, this is the first time that they have crossed into the groundwater business. LCRA’s water claim is on top of water use by Aqua Water Service Corporation, which has been providing water to about 50,000 Bastrop area residents since the 1970’s. Aqua’s present use is estimated around 9,000 AFY, though it is permitted for twice that amount. Thirsty San Antonio got permits to pump 50,000 AFY from the same aquifer in nearby Burleson County (Vista Ridge, aka “The San Antone Hose”). Though the original developer of the ‘San Antonio Hose’ went belly up, the construction company and city are plowing ahead to have the water flowing by 2020. An Austin based company came next. Cleverly named ‘Recharge LP’, it leaves the impression that it might help the aquifer. Headed by former Austin Mayor Will Wynn, Recharge (formerly End Op) got into action in 2016 with a permit from the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District for 56,000 AFY. Though close lipped, they apparently want to sell water to major developers in Hays, Travis and Williamson Counties. This application was approved by the water district, but currently under court challenge. In addition, Forestar Real Estate Group has an active permit for up to 28,500 AFY for new developments in Hays, Travis and Williamson counties. All of this adds up to well over 110,000 AFY that scientific studies show to be totally unustainable. But with millions of dollars and billions of gallons at stake the Bastrop region has a big target on its back. Editorial Note: We wish to thanks Al Braden, a volunteer with Austin350.org and a professional photographer for allowing us to print his photos and article. Al is one of many good friends in Austin who are looking out for water in our region. The Simsboro is a slow-to-no recharge aquifer as compared to the mighty Edwards Aquifer , a fast-recharging Karst aquifer. Watch the LIV video, “I Oppose the San Antone Hose.” Central Texans’ affordability and quality of life is under siege by water profiteers and their minions on government who believe rapid growth is just great. Who pays? You and the aquifers underlying us. #MicheleGangnes #SimsboroAquifer #ForestarRealEstate #Recharge #SimsboroAquiferWaterDefenseFund #JamesMurphy #WillWynn #EnvironmentalStewardship #AquiferWaterSupply #LCRA #SteveBox

This affects all Texans regardless of your party or location.   Central Texans’ affordability and quality of life is under siege by water profiteers and their minions in government who believe subsidizing in-migration growth carries no consequences. Check out our Costs of Growth page here . A powerful river authority in Central Texas, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), has applied for a mega-groundwater permit to get in on the ever-expanding Siege on the Simsboro Aquifer east of Austin. The precedent the Siege may set for groundwater resource mismanagement in Texas is not to be under-estimated. It is potentially damaging as Hurricane Harvey but slower and longer lasting. Take a moment to read this entire message. This is a long and difficult fight. Watch the video we released in 2015. And try your best to join us at these events below: CENTRAL TEXAS URGENT WATER ALERT! You’re invited to these two urgently important events in Bastrop. Thursday, September 13, 4:30 & 7 pm, American Legion, 3003 Hwy. 150, Bastrop, TX — but please reserve a seat by calling 512-333-0252 or sending an email to simsboro@fastmail.com ! This Community Meeting is for all those who want to fight this permit. Co-sponsored by the Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund and Friends of Bastrop Water: If you wish to contest the LCRA permit, you must file your intentions to do so no later than September 21st, 5 days before the public hearing! Come to this meeting! More details here . Wednesday, September 26, 7 pm:  HEARING on the LCRA permit at the Bastrop Convention Center, held by the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District. Don’t allow the escalation of the “California Water Model.” Moving precious groundwater to fuel no-holds-barred in-migration growth as fostered by the real estate lobby — harm our water supply, our affordability and our quality of life.  Hearing details pack the house on September 26th! Meanwhile, it is no coincidence… …that the Mayors of two major Texas cities — San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg and Austin Mayor Steve Adler — are attacking citizens petitions on the ballot in November: San Antonio and Austin voters can put a stop to this, just inform your voting friends. See the petition fights going on in San Antonio here  and in Austin here. The League of Independent Voters does not endorse candidates, but we know YOU do with your vote. Bring your concerns with you to the polls after you read How to Organize Texas Independents and talk to your officials and favorite candidates. Share this email from our website here. Like us on Facebook and ask your friends to do the same! Become a dues paying member of LIV ! Only a united Texas can put a stop to this madness in the 2019 legislative session. We’re getting ready to show you how, Texas! #Texasindependents #SimsboroAquifer #SimsboroAquiferWaterDefenseFund #AustinMayorSteveAdler #LCRA #SanAntonioMayorRonNIrenberg

The Quest to End Two-Party Rule: Part 1 “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” – John Adams Unfortunately, John Adams’ dread was all too prescient. But even as we lament the culmination of Adams’ prophecy, we may take heart in the fact that the country may be in the midst of a significant realignment of its politics, as divisions within each of the major parties appear to be fracturing old allegiances . Is it possible that our system of duopolistic political power-sharing may now be vulnerable to disruption? Could this, in fact, be a time for optimism? Matthew Dowd in his book, A New Way: Embracing the Paradox as We Lead and Serve , points out that even though we live in an era characterized by significant disruptive innovation, our politics has remained resistant to the entrepreneurial forces that have shaped so much of modern life. The questions that arise of course are firstly, why, and secondarily, what can be done about it. Those of us who are interested in bettering US politics will likely want to take advantage of this moment. But if we are to successfully deflate the two-party duopoly and inaugurate an era of more diverse and responsive politics, we should be actively engaging in a process of developing, thinking about, and planning a variety of insurgent approaches. Disruptive strategies are always fraught with danger and often fail, as many commercial entrepreneurs will attest to. But the promise of entrepreneurship is that a multiplicity of innovative ideas is ultimately what brings about successful change. It is unfortunate that the US system of single-member districts and plurality voting seems to naturally lead to a two-party duopoly ( Duverger’s Law ). Despite evidence that two-party rule is currently harming the country, many continue to extol the virtues of a two-party system, chiefly for its stability and its ability to ‘filter out’ extreme points of view. This argument typically notes that compromise and moderation occur inside the two dominant political parties, ensuring that only centrist positions prevail and suggesting that it is easier to govern when there are only two parties. But this suggestion also leads to the obvious corollary that one-party rule might be even better – clearly not a good recipe for the health of a democratic republic. Intraparty reconciliation of divergent competing views may have occurred more frequently before the advent of popular-vote primary elections ( The United States of Dysfunction , Carl Jarvis). But as we saw all too clearly in the last Presidential election, internal party politics now plays a small role in the selection of duopoly party candidates. The moderating influence of party has given way to intense polarization. Our political factions now seem to be behaving more like tribes, much to our collective detriment. In his book, Unstable Majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting & Political Stalemate , Morris Fiorina argues that our current state of polarization is not due to a less moderate electorate, but rather to polarization of the two major parties that make up the American duopoly. If true, this is good news, because the two major parties don’t seem to be paying attention. There is little evidence they are moderating their stances. If anything, they seem to be solidifying their positions on a war footing in a ‘crude death struggle for power’ ( Dan Henninger, Wall Street Journal ). The problem, of course, is that as the two dominant parties continue to battle, it is unlikely that either will cheerfully make much room for significant non-duopoly voices to participate in the political arena. We can expect the political giants to continue to wield their levers of power to squelch and exclude the additional competition needed to invigorate our system. We must resist, for it is hard to imagine that the current state of political tribalization can peacefully change without more pluralistic processes that embrace a greater variety of voter choice. And without greater voter choice, it’s not clear how we can hope to bring about the increased voter participation that is needed for an electorate fully engaged in the give-and-take of vibrant democratic politics envisioned by our founders. Future articles will explore three aspects that we should be considering as we engage in our quest to end two-party rule: 1) an elaboration on the nature of the Opportunity that lies before us, 2) an identification of the Barriers to change that stand in our way, and 3) a preliminary list of possible Strategies that might be considered as we develop plans for successfully bringing about change. Mark Miller Dripping Springs, TX Editor’s Note: Sign up to join the League of Independent Voters of Texas right here ! #MarkMiller #twopartyrule

September 6, 2018                                                       For Immediate Release Texas Independents to Decide Tight Races Bastrop, Texas, 11:00 am: Independents are now the largest portion of the electorate, according to a 2018 Gallup Poll. These voters could become the “change” that many challengers claim to be. Today, the non-partisan, non-profit League of Independent Voters of Texas (LIV) released “ How to Organize Texas Independents “, a guide for candidates running in November. They urge candidates regardless of party affiliation, to help unify voters to avert an economic and political crisis. LIV Board Member and author of “Uncle Sam’s Checkbook”, a quick-study guide to federal budget,” Jeff Harper, said, “We independents share a deep concern about the growing national debt threatening economic stability. We also believe that the calcification of a two-party monopoly precludes the rigorous debate necessary to avert an economic crisis. Candidates running in tight races, like Beto v. Cruz and Kopser v. Roy (CD-21), would be wise to help unify independents for their own good AND the good of the country.” Mark Miller, who won renewed ballot status for the LIbertarian Party by receiving enough votes for Railroad Commission in 2016, recently joined the Advisory Board of LIV. Miller said, “ Voters deserve an open and competitive ballot. In no other sphere do we allow only two viable choices. In many Texas legislative races we have one so-called choice, which is not a choice. That’s why we must pass the Texas Voter Choice Act in the 2019 legislative session.”  LIV focuses on political reforms, such as fair ballot access, independent citizens redistricting, protection of groundwater and ending eminent domain abuse. Since 2013, LIV has advocated for uniting rural, suburban and municipal voters to join with independent, non-aligned voters. LIV has urged voters to “step back from the party machines” to find a common purpose — bringing solutions to the table rather than tolerating continued discord. # For more information: Call 512-213-4511 or email LIV at : info@independentleaguetx.org #economiccrisis #Texasindependents #LeagueofIndependentVoters #Beto #Roy #Kopser #Cruz

Is it possible for Texas Independents to swing the Cruz v Beto race? If you live in Central Texas, be sure to read the WATER WAR ALERT at the end of this message. Please come to these events on September 13th and 26th! More below. You haven’t heard much from the League of Independent Voters (LIV) lately. Frankly, we’ve been retooling and waiting for opportunities we thought would not come until 2020. Even we are surprised at how tight the race is between Sen. Ted Cruz and Congressman Beto O’Rourke. Everybody’s talking about the obvious — independent voters will be the swing vote in tight races. There’s also a heated race in Congressional District 21 (Lamar Smith’s vacated seat) between Joseph Kopser (D) and Chip Roy (R). CD-21 covers the area where the 142-mile San Antone Hose hooks into San Antonio Water System and most of the Hill Country. See the map ? What are we — non-partisan independent voters — to do? Do the Texas Independent two-step! Step 1: Read LIV’s hot-off-the-press paper… How to Organize Texas Independents. Share it with your favorite candidate(s) Step 2 :  Volunteer to help LIV do candidate forums. Oops! We almost forgot! LIV needs some capital (or is it Capitol?!) investment. Help us grow the independent movement. Become a dues paying member today! Or DONATE here. We’ll send you one of these nifty bumper stickers or you can pick one up at upcoming forums. Watch for those details or call us to set one up in your area. Lots more independent action is expected for 2020. Hold on to your hats and get involved in LIV now! CENTRAL TEXAS URGENT WATER ALERT! The LCRA is now joining in on the Siege on the Simsboro Aquifer in Bastrop County.You’re invited to these two urgently important events in Bastrop! Thursday, September 13, 4:30 & 7 pm (but please reserve a seat!): Community Meeting for all those who want to fight thid permit. At the American Legion in Bastrop on Hwy. 150. Co-sponsored by the Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund and Friends of Bastrop Water: Details here . Wednesday, September 26, 7 pm:  HEARING at the Bastrop Convention Center, held by the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District. Details here. #Texasindependents #SimsboroAquifer #LCRAPermit #BetoORourke #TedCrus #CentralTexasWaterWar

How to Organize Texas Independents This paper was adopted on August 20, 2018. Please note, if LIV is holding a forum in your district, there may be additional questions raised about issues relevant to your district.  In that event, we are committed to giving candidates and voters information to consider well ahead of the event.  This is how Texas Independents can be reached by candidates, regardless of party affiliation. The most pressing problems of our nation are not up for debate in this mid-term election. They are the growing national debt threatening economic stability and the calcification of a two-party monopoly that precludes the rigorous debate necessary to avert an economic crisis. One-party rule is the most potent enemy of consensus. The Democratic strongholds in Texas municipalities are just as unhealthy as the Republican strongholds in the state legislature. The League of Independent Voters (LIV) seeks to organize the largest portion of voters — a 46% plurality of America is independent, according to this 2018 G a llup poll . This November 2017 NBC/GenForward poll of the incoming generation shows 71% of young Americans want a third party. LIV was founded in 2013 as a non-partisan, non-profit 501c4 membership organization dedicated to forging cross-partisan alliances. LIV has focused on state issues. But this year we are eager to move into the chasm created by the major parties in the federal arena. Most Americans have no idea, or much care, that the country has a $21 trillion debt. No wonder. Republican and Democratic “leaders” hardly worry about it. Future deficit forecasts? If re-election isn’t dependent on them, they won’t talk about them. Yet, as Baby Boomers retire, the lines for Social Security and Medicare just keep getting longer. And Eisenhower’s warning about a Military-Industrial Complex has proven prophetic. Our military budget was increased by $69 billion this year. The increase is equal to the entire annual military budget of Russia. How is it that talks of a “tax cut 2.0” are already underway but serious discussion of the massive impact on projected deficits created by the tax cut last year is no where to be heard? The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is predicting TRILLION-DOLLAR deficits. Could the “crazy aunt in the basement” (the image used by Ross Perot for the 4-trillion dollar debt in 1992) break out and go on a rampage? Who knows? But independents are the most likely voters in America to take action when someone finally sounds the alarm. Let’s just hope interest rates are not rising too much when the time comes, sending America to the emergency room. Quick Review of LIV LIV mission: Grow the five-million-strong group of independent Texas voters from a 42% plurality to a majority dedicated to replacing two-party rule with competitive elections. LIV Focus : Issues are our focus. We do not endorse candidates, but we may do scorecards, forums and social media in a few key districts where we see competitive races for federal and state elections. LIV Quick History : Some of the founders of LIV went through the grand-but-failed experiment in the 1990’s Perot movement and subsequent Reform Party. We learned through this experience that independent voters are not to be harnessed and fit “into” a political party. After that, a variety of organizing experiments with successful efforts in building cross-partisan alliances led to the founding of LIV in 2013. Helpful Background: See “ Divided We Stoo d” about the 2006 Texas independent gubernatorial campaigns. See Who Will Organize the Independents? ” Candidate Options, LIV Ideas Below are some ideas on what kinds of activities we might do together or separately with 2018 candidates, regardless of party affiliation. We are also happy to entertain your suggestions. Candidates can endorse any of LIV’s efforts and use our materials on their website. Though LIV will not be endorsing, LIV may do a scorecard of the candidates in your race. You can shine as an independent star by adopting our concerns. Use “Uncle Sam’s Checkbook” at your events to demonstrate your greater knowledge than your opponent about the federal budget and the dangers of a growing debt-crisis . (LIV sells the Checkbook booklet wholesale for $3, which also helps fund LIV. If you did not receive a copy via regular mail, let us know right away.) LIV may run forums in your district . These forums are designed to be participatory and discourage detractors shilling for candidates or special interests. The forums also provide a place for candidates to meet up with independent voters. Possible topics include: T he Crazy Aunt in the Basement – the National Debt Crisis: These are participatory workshops put on by LIV’s own “resident budget nerd” Jeff Harper. Jeff is the author of Uncle Sam’s Checkbook. Participants are engaged to balance the federal budget. We also suggest you meet with Jeff to discuss the federal budget and have him explain how you can use the booklet as a quick tool for education on the federal budget. Electoral Competition and Independent Politics : LIV is qualified to talk about how independent politics has been thwarted through unfair ballot access laws in the most independent of states, the great state of Texas. This workshop also focuses on a variety of political reforms, such as non-partisan independent-citizen redistricting. ( See LIV political reforms here .) The Central Texas Water Wars : Leaders of the two parties are afraid to break ranks and start the conversation of how to balance conservation of water resources with development. LIV has some of the most well-informed people in Texas on this issue because LIV was born 35 miles east of Austin, right over the most targeted groundwater in Texas LIV Policy Priorities Make our Independent issues yours! National Issues Re-building Consensus in Congress LIV urges candidates running for US Congress to support the “ Break the Gridlock ” proposal of the Problem Solvers Caucus in the US House. The proposal speaks for itself. Our only addition is the recognition that those who make the rules, rule. (Suggested read: “ Those Who Make the Rules, Rule ,” by Professor Omar Ali.) ___ Congressional candidates can pledge to join the Problem Solvers Caucus on your first day in Congress. The National Debt Our national debt poses a threat because of its capacity to undermine economic stability and in turn social cohesion. A stable economic footing is as much about domestic tranquility as it is the general welfare. As our governing institutions decay, our national finances decline. Are we in the early stages of falling apart as a nation? Crazy? Unthinkable? Consider for a moment how much worse our polarized political dialogue might now be if the economy had not improved much since 2008? Now, consider the Fed’s actions to stabilize the economy back in 2008. It purchased large amounts of US Treasuries to increase the money supply in order and jump-start the economy. Since 2008, the Fed has expanded its balance sheet by seven times the amount it had accrued in its almost 100 years of previous existence. So what? What does this mean? What this means is that in the next economic recession, the Fed’s capacity to “pump up the economy” will not be as great. The risks of inflation might be prohibitive. It would also face the tremendous challenge of ridding itself of the assets it now holds, without disrupting the economy. Finally, consider how elected officials in Washington have enacted tax cuts and fiscal stimulus, time and again, with the rationalization of growing the economy so as to reduce federal deficits. However, the national debt continues to mount. The national debt is rising both in actual dollars and as a percentage of our nation’s economy. So much so, that projected debt-to-GDP ratios for the not too distant future now exceed those of the historic highs following WWII. Unlike today, in 1950 most all of our debt was held domestically, the US dominated world trade, and the dollar was as “good as gold.” ___ Candidates (state and federal) can pledge support of the non-partisan effort put forward by the respected Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget to fix the debt . ___ CRFB has agreed to come to Texas to put on forums. Will you participate? National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform “Simpson-Bowles” The last major effort to rein in the national debt was made in 2010, when President Obama appointed an 18-member commission with the objective of putting the national debt on a stable and downward path. Simply put, to come up with a budget plan. The nickname of the commission stems from the two chairs, former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and former Chief of Staff for President Clinton, Erskine Bowles. Simpson-Bowles convened in April, held hearings for several months, and then held a formal vote on whether to send the budget blueprint that evolved out of the hearings to Congress. On December 3, the budget plan only received 11 of the required 14 votes to make it out of committee. Below are the 11 yes votes and the 7 no votes. Yes                                                                                                No Alan Simpson (R-WY), former Senator                                         Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) Erskine Bowles (D-Chief of Staff, Clinton)                                     House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) Alice Rivlin (D-former CBO and/or OMB Director)                         Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) Kent Conrad (D-ND) Senate Budget Chair                                    Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) House Budget Chair                               Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)                                                            Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)                                                              Andrew Stern (D) Serv. Empl.Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) David Cote (R) Honeywell International Ann Fudge (I) Young & Rubicam Brands What to do: Until a financial crisis emerges, President Trump and Congress won’t see the light. Until they feel the heat, they will do nothing much about pending trillion-dollar deficits. Ethical candidates can score “independent points” by playing the role of educator on the budget challenges we face. ___ Pledge to help LIV organize “Deficit Reduction Exercises” throughout your district. Candidates can help lead the discussion, if you wish. We do not expect you to come up with your own budget plan – any sincere and responsible effort on that would take months. We request you help engage citizens in a “kitchen table” discussion of budget priorities. Ordinary citizens can be gently challenged to “balance the budget” as though they are members of Congress. Fresh ideas will come out of this process and everyone will learn. LIV will help you by engaging independent voters to take responsibility as well for this challenge. We will be making the same request of other candidates in your race. State Issues Ballot Access, Redistricting, Municipal Petition, Groundwater and Eminent Domain Reform Major party voters, by large margins, want additional choices (2017 Poll), and only 22% of infrequent or unregistered voters surveyed think either major party offers enough choice ( April 2018 USA Today Poll) . We have no Texas specific polls. We invite your campaign to share polling data with us about independent and non-aligned voters in your district. Ballot Access Reform Independent ballot access experts have rated Texas in the top five of the most difficult states in the country for statewide independents and parties to achieve ballot access. Statewide independent candidates must gather generally 50,000 signatures in 60 or sometimes only 30 days and only from voters who did not vote in the primary. LIV is part of a coalition of independents and minor parties in Texas backing the Texas Voter Choice Act (TVCA). TVCA, which establishes fair rules for independent candidates and minor parties to get on the ballot, was introduced into the Texas House in the 2017 legislative session.             TVCA features are: Establishes reasonable signature requirements and filing deadlines Authorizes voters to sign nomination petitions online Eliminates restrictions on voters’ right to sign nomination petitions if they vote in a major party primary Eliminates unneeded filing requirements for candidates Establishes reasonable requirements for retaining ballot access for established minor parties Visit the website for details: Texas Voter Choice Act ___ State and Federal candidates should support the TVCA. ___ Federal candidates should also support the reintroduction of the fair ballot access legislation first introduced by Rep. John Conyers in the 1980’s, by Rep. Tim Penney in the 1990’s, and by Rep. Ron Paul in 1997 as HR 2477 . Helpful Background: No one in the country knows more about the ballot access obstacles than Richard Winger of Ballot Access News . We also highly recommend this paper: “Death by a Thousand Signatures” by Oliver Hall, Esq. of the Center for Competitive Democracy. Independent Citizens Redistricting Commissions We support non-partisan independent citizens redistricting commissions (ICRC). An ICRC measure was passed in 2008 by California voters via a citizen-led statewide referendum. After six attempts, California got it right! A similar commission was passed by a citizen-led municipal voter referendum in the city of Austin in 2012. ___ Candidates for all offices should support this simple concept – take the redistricting pen out of the hands of politicians and give power to a randomly selected pool of qualified individuals screened by state or local auditors for conflicts of interest. Helpful Background: Fairvote’s website gives a good quick review . Based on our experience developing the Austin ICRC model, we can provide you lots of advice. Municipal Petition Rights – Ordinary Texan’s Local Control Most Texans do not know that Texans living in home-rule cities (cities with at least 5,000 population and a city charter) have a powerful tool – the right to petition for initiatives, referendums, recalls and charter amendments (commonly called “I&R”.) In 1912, as part of our constitutional amendment for home rule, Texans secured the right of municipal petitioning. A bill in the 2015 legislative session, the anti-petition bill HB2595 , nearly gutted municipal petition rights. HB2595 came on the heels of the quick passage of HB40. HB 40’s proponent was the oil and gas lobby, which demanded the Denton citizen-led initiative for setbacks of fracking facilities within the city limits be overturned. HB40 was a stunning successful attack on local municipal control by the all-powerful Texas oil and gas lobby. LIV provided the glue for petitioners from all camps to kill HB2595 that had passed nearly unanimously in the Texas House. When it reached the Senate, activists ranging from the tea party to greens had the Senate Committee on Natural Resources looking like deer in headlights. In 2017, Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston), introduced SB 488 to protect petition rights. Though it sailed through the Senate, with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s support, it was obstructed in the House. Petition rights likely got caught in the war between Patrick and House Speaker Joe Straus. In 2018, petition wars have broken out with the cities of Houston, Austin and San Antonio boldly interfering with petitioner’s rights to petition at public libraries, illegal ballot language, and defiance of city charter protections for petitioning. ___ State candidates can pledge to oppose legislation designed to interfere with or to diminish Texans’ petition rights and to support legislation recommended by LIV to protect petition rights. Helpful Background : The Austin Bulldog, updated August 11, “ Council’s Ballot Language Trigger’s Lawsuit(s).” San Antonio Express News, August 8, 2018, “ PAC seeks criminal charges for fire union, others for allegedly violating election law .” The Siege on Texas Groundwater Groundwater permits have been issued to pump groundwater from our underground aquifers at unsustainable rates.. This is currently facilitated by state law, which elevates groundwater development over groundwater protection. Policy changes are needed to ensure our groundwater is sustainably managed and the property rights of landowners, especially smaller, rural landowners, are protected. The Republican and Democratic Party 2018 platforms reflect activists in both parties are concerned about these issues. However, there is not enough support yet from the power centers of either party to overcome the overriding influence of the business lobby, particularly land and water speculators looking for profits from high-dollar projects. We believe political change will soon dilute special interests’ hold over local and state government. The 2019 Texas Legislative Session could be pivotal for a shift away from repeating the “California model” of failed groundwater policy leading to groundwater depletion. Federal Level Concerns: Groundwater pumping at current and proposed levels will reduce stream flow, harm native species and trigger Endangered Species Act violations. Congress must make it clear that the surface-groundwater exchange will not be affected by the lack of clarity in Texas groundwater legislation.  Congress must also prod the Department of Interior and its Bureau of Land Management to protect groundwater on Federal lands, prevent government- owned groundwater rights from being given away to private developers, and in general protect the environment from harm. Congress should condition federal loans for water-related programs on States enacting groundwater rules regarding sustainability. LIV urges: State water policy must seek a balance between conservation and protection of aquifers versus development of groundwater. We must legislatively determine, based on reliable science, how much water may be sustainably produced in perpetuity. Failing to determine the limits of sustainability will ensure depletion of the resource. Texas law currently makes permits that exploit groundwater resources and rural landowners extremely difficult to challenge. Landowners must not be denied access to the permitting process to complain about massive permits that result in a “taking” of their property, whether they are currently producing their groundwater or not. State water policy must be reformed to recognize: excessive groundwater withdrawals, from any aquifer, must not be tolerated; in all cases, the most efficient use of existing water supplies to meet realistic projections of demand must precede development of any new supplies; and the development of sound regional water supply solutions should take precedence over the current practice of “cherry picking” distant aquifers at higher economic, environmental and social costs. ___ State Candidates: Pledge to join the LIV approved water reform coalition for the 2019 Texas legislative session, under discussion as we write. LIV is committed to joining with all stakeholders to carve legislation to reform groundwater laws and practices to achieve the above goals. ___ State Candidates: Pledge to motivate your constituents to demand increased water efficiency and more protection for our aquifers, landowners and ratepayers, over costly movement of groundwater and reservoirs that primarily benefit private interests and irresponsible governmental entities. ___ State Candidates: Pledge to support legislative efforts to require an elected Board of Trustees for the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) and to subject the SAWS/Vista Ridge water supply project to a comprehensive, independent legal and financial review/audit. SAWS was created as a political subdivision with an appointed Board of Trustees, who act independent of City Council oversight and without accountability to the electorate when entering into economically, environmentally and socially irresponsible agreements such as Vista Ridge. ___ State Candidates and Federal Candidates: Pledge to support efforts to get the Governor involved in groundwater law and policy reform. ___ Federal Candidates: Pledge to help LIV develop strategies to protect water resources laid out in the section marked “Federal Level Concerns” above. Helpful Background: Interim hearings in June 2018 held by Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water and Rural Affairs are a good indication that profiteering water marketers are getting a “fair” hearing as landowners and ratepayers are left to fend for themselves. ( See Senate Hearing video archive.) Watch the LIV’s “ I Oppose the San Antone Hose ” 17-minute video about the $3.4 billion Vista Ridge 142-mile groundwater pipeline project that threatens two critically important central Texas aquifers — the Simsboro and the federally-protected Edwards Aquifer. Independent Texans’ 2013 White Paper: End the Urban v. Rural Water Wars, Vote No on Prop 6! Eminent Domain Reform Eminent domain has long been a part of the Common Law. Governments must on occasion rely on this power to confiscate, with compensation, a private citizen’s property to complete necessary public infrastructure projects. While acknowledging the necessity, Texans have been careful to restrict the government’s ability to invoke eminent domain. The real danger is rarely direct abuse by political subdivisions; rather, the awesome power of government to invoke eminent domain is often corrupted by private parties covertly using it for private gain The Texas Legislature has often reaffirmed the private property rights of landowners, mandating a Landowners Bill of Rights in 2009, but has failed to enact additional needed reforms to protect landowner’s rights to fair treatment and compensation for private land taken through eminent domain. LIV supported reforms put forth in the 2017 Texas legislative session by Texans for Property Rights . As we write, the League and other property-rights advocates are also addressing abuses of the power of condemnation associated with water grabs for the 2019 session. Stay tuned for those developments. Independents support adequate landowner and community notice. We also support giving district courts the power to review all evidence (aka de novo review) in a condemnation appeal, awarding attorney fees to certain landowners, prohibiting eminent domain seizures for “economic development”, and common carrier reform. ___ State Candidates: Support the protection of private property from government overreach and from the covert use of condemnation by private interests for personal gain. ___ State Candidates : Support the LIV and Texans for Property Rights agendas. ___ Federal Candidates: We do not suggest federal legislation on eminent domain reform. But we ask for your help to inform your constituents about LIV’s efforts for the state of Texas. Helpful Background : Read this LIV report about the disappointing 2017 Legislative Session with regard to the failure of a seemingly formidable eminent domain coalition. League of independent Voters of Texas PO Box 651 * Bastrop, TX 78602 * IndependentLeagueTX.org * 512.213.4511 #Texasindependents

The Town Hall Water Meetings Tuesday, July 17, at the Paige Community Center are Try to reserve a seat but if you decide last minute, just come on over at 4:30 or 6:30 pm! at 4:30, 6:30 and, if those fill up, at 8:30 pm. Though this is a free event, we suggest you try to reserve a seat due to somewhat limited seating. (And, please share this post using the share buttons on this page.) To reserve a seat you can reply to this message with your name, address and which time slot you want to attend OR please call 512.333.0252. Michele Gangnes’ commentary in the Bastrop Advertiser edition of Saturday’s Austin American-Statesman explains why you don’t want to miss it. She warns: ►”When LCRA announced their deal with the Boy Scouts in 2015, they teased us with benevolent words — they pointed out the water is “well located” to help meet Bastrop County’s projected water needs. The potentially local project has now morphed into a full-blown export project. LCRA won’t say where the water will end up other than disappearing into LCRA’s huge water delivery system. The prevailing rumor is that the water will be piped to Austin to offset that city’s Highland Lakes demand.” Read the full commentary — Welcome to California: LCRA Joins ‘Siege on the Simsboro’ — here. For lots more background on this permit, please visit this page at Environmental Stewardship . Hope to see you on Tuesday and do spread the word. Let folks know that they are welcome to come last minute but reserving a seat guarantees they’ll have one. #LCRA #MicheleGangnes #SimsboroAquifer

Map of proposed wells for LCRA Permit to export 25,000 acre-feet of groundwater from the Boy Scout property in Bastrop County This commentary “LCRA joins siege on Simsboro Aquifer” first appeared on Saturday, July 14, in the Bastrop Advertiser Edition of the Austin American-Statesman newspaper. The Lower Colorado River Authority likes our local groundwater so much, it’s coming back for lots more. It already uses Simsboro wells to fill its Lake Bastrop Power Plant cooling pond. LCRA’s application for eight more Simsboro wells — and 8.15 billion gallons of water a year — is pending at Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District. This is the latest chapter of the saga we call, “The Siege on the Simsboro,” also known as: “California, Here We Come.” The Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District will soon schedule the official public hearing that precedes any action on the permit. The hearing date could be announced at the district’s board meeting on July 18 at 7 p.m. at Bastrop City Hall, 1311 Chestnut St. LCRA’s application will be the focus of free community meetings on Tuesday, July 17 at the Paige Community Center, 117 Main St., Paige, at 4:30, 6:30 and possibly 8:30 p.m. We love this venue, but space is limited. Reserve your seat with your name and address — by phone at 512-333-0252 or by email at simsboro@fastmail.com. The many Bastrop residents who live near the project will receive priority. The Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund (SAWDF), an all-volunteer Central Texas nonprofit 501c3, is proud to have the newly-formed Friends of Bastrop Water (FWB) group as its cosponsor of the meetings. FBW founder Jeannie Jessup of the Circle D community is a champion of the unique Lost Pines ecosystem that lies in the midst of LCRA’s project. Come to the Town Hall Water Meeting this Tuesday! Come talk with us about how you can influence the fate of this permit. Challenging permits has been made extremely difficult, but we can’t let that stop us. If trends continue, Texas law and policy will ensure our aquifers are “mined” to depletion, and rural landowners are marginalized. SAWDF works every day for sustainably managed groundwater and protection of landowners’ property rights. With your generous donations, we have financially supported the four landowners who stood up to the Lost Pines GCD on the End Op mega-permit. The landowners won in state district court and are now in the Third Court of Appeals, fighting a critical battle that deserves the continued support of their neighbors. Our friends at Environmental Stewardship and hydrologist George Rice will talk Tuesday about the next 40 years and the predicted drawdowns across Bastrop and Lee counties, in the Simsboro and other aquifers we depend on. You don’t want to miss this. LCRA’s proposed project is located on the Republic of Texas-era “Griffith League Scout Ranch,” adjacent to Circle D and near the intersection of Texas 21 and FM 1441. Seven other existing or proposed Simsboro commercial wells are nearby. The “Griffith” in Griffith League Ranch I can’t help but note that the “Griffith” in Griffith League Ranch was most recently ranch owner Mary Lavinia Griffith. The salty and colorful Mrs. Griffith was a descendant of a signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence. She disinherited her own family in favor of the Boy Scouts, whom she trusted to preserve her family’s 1830’s land grant ranch — and its groundwater — from development. Unfortunately, it was the Boy Scouts, her chosen stewards, who sold the ranch’s water rights “exclusively” to LCRA in January 2015. When LCRA announced their deal with the Boy Scouts in 2015, they teased us with benevolent words — they pointed out the water is “well located” to help meet Bastrop County’s projected water needs. The potentially local project has now morphed into a full-blown export project. LCRA won’t say where the water will end up other than disappearing into LCRA’s huge water delivery system. The prevailing rumor is that the water will be piped to Austin to offset that city’s Highland Lakes demand. LCRA apparently has declined the district’s request to talk to the public at any time prior to its hearing. LCRA is hereby invited to join us Tuesday and answer our questions. Needless to say, all elected officials in the two counties are also invited. Michele Gangnes, veteran aquifer guardian of Simsboro aquifer formation Michele Gangnes is a Lee County landowner, attorney and veteran of the central Texas water wars. She is a founding board member of the Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund. For more information, visit: https://facebook.com/groups/bastropwater/ and http://www.simsborowaterdefensefund.org and https://tinyurl.com/environ.steward . #MicheleGangnes #SimsboroAquifer #BoyScouts #SimsboroAquiferWaterDefenseFund #HydrologistGeorgeRice #MaryLaviniaGriffith #LCRA

End Op’s pipe dream — pun intended — to export masses of water out from under Bastrop and Lee counties has been stymied for years. We hope you have already seen this article, printed in the Bastrop Advertiser on February 8t h. . And then there’s this article, published in the Giddings Times and News on February 7.  Both articles are about the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District’s — and End Op’s —- decisions to appeal a recent court decision in favor of four local landowners. Lost Pines’ General Manager Jim Totten whom we like and respect, was indirectly quoted to have said this. ”The decision [to appeal] was made to ensure the district has a voice in front of the appeals court and can protect the public interest in the case.” The District and End Op have fought the landowners for several years. But by not accepting the judge’s decision to allow the landowners to challenge End Op’s permit, the District has once again aligned itself with End Op. Also, according to the District, both End Op and the District are interested in “mediating” their dispute with landowners. Time will tell. The Lost Pines Board meets this Wednesday night at 7 pm at the Giddings Public Library ( agenda here ). We wish we knew what to tell you to expect, but we don’t. Note that the meeting agenda calls for a private session with its lawyers about three pending legal matters. Apparently, revisiting the board’s decision to appeal earlier this month,, is one of those matters. The agenda says any action on the appeal may include “ratifying” the Board’s previous 4-2 vote, whatever that means. The judge’s decision also yanked End Op’s permit to export 46,000 acre-feet of Simsboro water to the IH-35 growth corridor in order to give the landowners the opportunity to protest the permit. And we now have learned the 3rd Court of Appeals has refused End Op’s request to “expedite” the appeal. End Op’s unsuccessful search for a customer has turned into even bigger problems for the Austin-based water marketer! Michele Gangnes, Director Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund We are sure the District understands one of its duties under state law is to protect “property rights.” But it remains to be seen what the Board believes “protecting the public interest” includes. Does it include protecting the property rights of all Lee and Bastrop landowners in the groundwater below their land ? We hope so. Landowners, with your support, have a real shot at making End Op’s pipe dream just that —- End Op’s pipe dream. #3rdCourtofAppeal #EndOp #MicheleGangnes #proepertyrights