Search this site

The Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer is under siege but working together we can protect it and leave a legacy of water for all Texans. You heard about the climate crisis, right? Lots of people have and lots of people talk about it and do nothing or even do real harm, while they’re talking about it. Here’s what we need from you — straight up — this week. All Texans, please CALL your legislators — county and state. San Antonians, do the same, but start with Mayor Ron Nirenberg and your Council members. The officials can get real by supporting the push for independent audit of the destructive Vista Ridge water pipeline project and getting a rein on the rogue public water utility — SAWS. ►Use our catchy “Vista Ridge, Son of Sam” flier to know who to call and what to say . Question:  What happens when SAWS Comes for Water They Don’t Need? Answer:  They Demand More! That’s right, Vista Ridge is coming back to the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District on October 3 for more water they cannot use. Why? Hmm…let’s see. Do you think it might have anything to do with the aggressive growth-metroplex agenda of big real estate and their pals in public office and public utilities? Rural and urban Texans are catching the drift — greater indebtedness, rising taxes and fees, homelessness, concentrated poverty and potential harm to our homes and to critically important land and water resources. — Details on Oct. 3 here . ► Check out this week’s article, “ Conservative Calls Vista Ridge Manmade Climate Crisis “ Question: Is the elimination of the Electoral College a hot idea…or are there other ways to reform the system to actually expand democracy? ►Check out this week’s brilliant article from Mark Miller, “Electing Electors “ Have you taken independent voter survey? How many of our 15 points can you get and is that enough to entice you to pay some dues to the LIV ?  Click on the sticker and take the survey, already! Do you appreciate our work? Become a dues paying member of LIV. That’s how we do what we do — you make it happen. Thanks to the many of you who continue to work with us every day, year in year out. We appreciate you so much! #electoralcollege #SAWS #VistaRidge

When a Conservative Calls Vista Ridge Manmade Climate Crisis maybe some will listen but it won’t be SAWS or their private partners. Burleson, Milam, Lee and Bastrop countians, come to Post Oak Hearing October 3rd and be heard. It’s your water. Question:  What happens SAWS Comes for Water They Don’t Need? Friday’s #GlobalClimateStrike witnessed saw millions take to the streets all around the world demanding action on the world’s climate crisis. Many Texas rallied as well, including a large contingent at our State Capitol in Austin. Sadly, demands for global action ignored a man-made crisis in Central Texas that affects us all.  We’re talking about the Vista Ridge mega-groundwater conveyance pipeline, a private, for-profit venture that threatens to undermine an underground aquifer just 50 miles east of the Capitol. The Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer is under siege but working together we can protect it and leave a legacy of water for all Texans. Watch the video from Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund . The reality is that there once was a major coalition that fought Vista Ridge, but the going has been tough and many of the tough are resigned to fighting their own battles. The good news is a better organized coalition – the Vista Ridge Resolution Coalition (VRRC) – has targeted the source of the problem and identified the solution. The VRCC is urging the San Antonio City Council to authorize an independent management, legal and financial audit of the project, while calling for a city ordinance to rein in the San Antonio Water System (SAWS), a rogue public agency ultimately responsible for this project. The VRCC sent this release , this cover letter and 10-page back up document to media and officials throughout the region. Just what they are going to do with it is a big question. Answer:  SAWS & Private Corporate Partners Demand More! San Antonio doesn’t need all the water they’re committed to purchase from the corporations behind this project, yet the private partners behind Vista Ridge just filed a permit for additional water! Robert Puente, the CEO of SAWS told the City Council on February 14, 2018 that he would sell 15K of Vista Ridge’s 50K acre-feet commitment so that ratepayers wouldn’t be paying for the water they neither needed nor could use. Mr. Puente knew about this problem for nearly two years, yet his efforts to sell water to cities along the 142-mile pipeline have come to nothing.  Mr. Puente’s attempt to sell far less expensive Edwards Aquifer water to developers outside the city failed when Governor Abbott vetoed House Bill 1806. This legislation was developed by the SAWS lobby team without approval from the San Antonio City Council, and would’ve undermined the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan by permitting SAWS to serve customers beyond its prescribed zones in Kendall County. Senator Lois Kolkhorst stood up in the Senate and publicly cried foul: “SAWS is now looking for new customers! And so, basically my district is supplying water to SAWS so they can supply water to other parts. And I don’t think it’s fair! I don’t think that’s what we signed up for!” (For more on the HB 1806 veto visit our news article here .) James Lee Murphy, Esq ., serves on the Advisory Board of the LIV and is a top Texas water lawyer. Today he said, “As conservative Republican I am appalled.  Vista Ridge is both an economic and environmental disaster, and no matter what your political stripes, this is a true climate catastrophe. Both left and right should be opposed to this reckless, wasteful project. We should demand that our media and local officials address this problem. Even environmentalists have their heads down – even those in the area that will be flooded with development fueled by water taken from an aquifer that does not recharge in human terms.” (Murphy, in this LIV article, also blew the whistle on Puente being “ way overpaid .”) Linda Curtis , LIV’s volunteer coordinator said, “If the San Antonio City Council and elected officials across the region step up and take these public-private partners on – the ones who left the rest of us out — this will benefit everybody; SAWS ratepayers, landowners, environmentalists and we don’t have to argue about whose fault this is.” Just get on the phone, people, and call your officials and demand an audit of Vista Ridge and a rein on SAWS and ask your friendly media folks to do what they do best – sound the alarm already! #SanAntonioCityCouncil #CarrizoWilcoxAquifer #LoisKolkhorst #GregAbbott #SimsboroAquiferWaterDefenseFund #SAWS #JamesMurphy #ClimateCrisisLindaCurtis #climatechange

Once again, we thank Mark Miller for this wonderful article, “Electing Electors.” Mark is a retired professor of Petroleum Engineering. But you likely remember him when the top major Texas newspapers endorsed him when he ran for Railroad Commission in 2016 — on the Libertarian Party ticket. He was the most qualified, by far! Mark also sits on the LIV Advisory Committee mainly focusing his efforts on election reform. As we enter our far-too-lengthy presidential election season, the political class begins its inevitable ruminations on the Electoral College – an institution that for many seems archaic and grossly undemocratic. Their concerns generally stem from three features: Unlike other elected US public offices, the Electoral College provides for an indirect means of selecting our President. The Electoral College violates the one-person-one-vote political equality principal by giving disproportionate representation to small state voters. The problem of disproportionate representation is magnified by the fact that all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) have winner-take-all provisions for choosing their electors. The first issue is largely moot, since electors very seldomly (though occasionally ) violate state-mandated statutes that require them to vote for the candidate from the political party to which they are pledged. The other two concerns, however, are clearly ones that deserve to be part of our national political conversations. It is important to recognize that the US is organized as a federal republic . Governing is divided between the individual states and the federal government. Over the course of our history, we have seen increased nationalization, effectively moving more and more responsibilities away from the states and to the federal government. This is in spite of the fact that the US Constitution was designed to limit the scope and duties of the federal government in favor of the states. The structure of both the Electoral College and the Senate were intended to foster federalism, in part by making certain that the federal government would not be dominated by larger states. Many, including me, believe that the trend of increased nationalization of US politics is one that should be resisted. Doing away with the Electoral College and/or altering the structure of the US Senate (and not replacing them with other mechanisms to preserve federalism) would undoubtedly exacerbate the nationalization trend we have already experienced. The structure of the US Senate and the Electoral College can also be thought of as ways to combat “tyranny of the majority”. Constitutional governments such as ours are intended to allow for collective democratic governance while still making certain that minority rights are protected. Our current state of political polarization seems to be aligning itself along rural vs. urban lines. Taking away some of the fail-safes in the system that protect rural concerns sounds like a recipe for increased, not decreased, political rancor. I am sympathetic, though, to the concerns of those who feel that their vote (and thus their voice) is diminished by the Electoral College. The dominance of two-party politics in the US makes this concern more significant. Presidential campaigns largely ignore states that vote reliably for one party (such as Texas in the recent past). Voters in those states justifiably feel ignored and even disenfranchised. Reduced voter turnout is a likely consequence, particularly in states for which elections for statewide offices are held in off-presidential years. There are many who believe that we should simply do away with the Electoral College. This would, of course, require a constitutional amendment – with its very high hurdles of 2/3 of the Senate and House or 2/3 of the states to propose an amendment, followed by ratification by at least 3/4 of the state legislatures. It’s hard to imagine that there is sufficient groundswell for this to occur. There is, however, an alternative move afoot called the National Popular Vote (NPV) Interstate Compact that would seek to essentially disenfranchise the Electoral College without eliminating it. The NPV Compact would require signatory states to award all of their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote, ignoring how individual states voted. The compact would not be triggered until legislation was enacted in enough states to guarantee the necessary electoral votes to win a Presidential election. Thus far, 15 states and the District of Columbia (representing 196 out of the 270 necessary electoral votes) have passed enabling legislation. A bill was introduced in the 2019 Texas legislative session ( HCR 149 ). But it failed to even get a hearing in committee. Unsurprisingly, the states that have thus far signed onto the NPV Compact voted Democrat in the last presidential election. The Democrats are clearly stinging from losing two recent Presidential elections (2000 and 2016) in the Electoral College while winning the national popular vote (by pluralities, not majorities). We might be able to see this as a principled move, if it weren’t for the fact that the states (and District of Columbia) that have thus-far signed on to the compact all voted for the Democratic candidate in 2016. Though proponents of the initiative claim the NPV Compact would pass constitutional muster, there is some doubt that it would do so given Article II Section 10 Clause 3 of the Constitution: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. It would be imprudent to comment on how the US Supreme Court might rule on this issue. However, it would seem to that the NPV Compact, at the very least, violates the spirit of the Constitution, if not its letter. But even if this initiative fails, there are other things that might be considered to reform how we select our presidential electors. At the time of the 1790 census, each member of the US House of Representatives represented around 60,000 people. Only two states had a single representative (Rhode Island and Delaware). The largest state (Virginia) had 10. Over the years, Congress gradually increased the size of the House as population and the number of states grew. A law passed in 1911 capped the size at 435 at a time when there were 48 states (Arizona and New Mexico were admitted in 1912) and the US had a population of around 100 million people. Each representative represented a little over 200,000 people. Today the House represents 50 states with a population of nearly 330 million people. Each representative now answers to around 750,000 people. Seven states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) have only a single representative. Our largest state (California) has 53. The protection afforded to smaller states has clearly increased. Some have suggested that one solution to mitigate the over-representation problem is to adopt the Wyoming Rule . This proposal would increase the size of the House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest state (now Wyoming). Based on the 2000 census, this would have required 569 House seats instead of the current 435. Increasing the size of the House of Representatives would increase the clout of large states in both the House of Representatives and the Electoral College ( e.g ., California would gain 13 representatives and electors, Texas 9, New York 7). Another possibility would be for large states to split into smaller ones. California voters recently attempted to use the state’s initiative process to force a vote to divide the state into three parts ( Proposition 9 ). Though the California Supreme Court removed this initiative from the 2018 ballot, the issue is not dead. California voters may yet be given a chance to weigh in on this proposal. It’s hard to imagine that elected officials in large states such as California would welcome a move toward power decentralization. But voters might just realize that such a move would provide for more responsive state governments as well as increasing their clout in both the US Senate and the Electoral College. Finally, we should consider perhaps the most egregious problem with the Electoral College – the winner-take-all provisions enacted by all but two states (Maine and Nebraska). Voters favoring the out-of-favor party in one-party states ( e.g ., California and Texas) most certainly feel disenfranchised when it comes to presidential politics. Not only are these states ignored during the campaigns (except the primaries), but many see little point in showing up on election day knowing how their state’s entire slate of electors is essentially pre-ordained. Maine and Nebraska deal with this problem by selecting an elector from each of their Congressional districts based on the votes in each district. The remaining two electors are selected based on the total statewide vote. In 2016, Maine had three Democratic electors and one Republican elector. Nebraska had five Republican electors. Not surprisingly, Maine’s most rural district voted Republican even though overall the state voted Democratic. This type of system should appeal to many voters. Imagine the electoral vibrancy (and voter turnout), especially in swing districts, where we could anticipate much local campaigning for both the district’s Representative and for President. The hurdle to this change would be the reluctance of either dominant political party to relinquish the benefits that accrue from winner-take-all. Voters and legislatures in swing states would perhaps be those most interested in considering this type of change. To either eliminate the Electoral College or bring the NPV Compact to enactment would require large national efforts with very high hurdles. Perhaps those interested in reforming our presidential election system might wish to consider engaging in state-by-state efforts that could prove to be more achievable. Mark Miller Dripping Springs, TX #electoralcollege #voterturnout #constitutionalgovernments #disenfranchisedvoters #MarkMiller

What do you do when a critical resource for our present and future generations is endangered? Do you ignore it, sit on your hands, or even help the perpetrators? This is the essence of what far too many officials have done, so far, about Vista Ridge…aka the San Antone Hose.  Vista Ridge, scheduled for pumping in April 2020, is the most imminent threat to the water supply of Texas yet. It is hosing SAWS ratepayers with unnecessary 52% rate hikes, and taking the rights of the landowners who are supposed to own the groundwater underlying them in Burleson, Milam, Lee and Bastrop counties. The 50,000 acre-feet Vista Ridge mega-permit is a threat to the aquifers in Burleson, Milam, Lee and Bastrop counties. (See our copiously detailed 10-page document released to media and local and state officials last week . ) Believe it or not, these guys are coming back to the overly permissive Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District on October 3 for even more water for Vista Ridge! Just as they are relentless, so must we be.  Please join us to prepare for the October 3rd hearing and for other opportunities to fight Vista Ridge, at a local residents’ and landowner’ meeting. Join us this Saturday, September 21, from 3 to 5 pm Caldwell Civic Center, 103 West Hwy. 21, Caldwell, 77836 Can’t make it, this Saturday? Please make plans to come to the October 3rd hearing before the POSGCD Board on this permit amendment.  If you have a registered well in Burleson or Milam, you may be able to be recognized as an “affected person” and seek a contested case hearing. NOTE:  If you want to contest this permit demand, you must file papers to contest this permit by no later than SEPTEMBER 26TH. CALL US FOR DETAILS AT 512-213-4511 or send a message to Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund at: info@simsborowaterdefensefund.org October 3 Hearing:  THURSDAY, October 3, 2019, 5:30PM. Post Oak-Savannah Groundwater Conservation District Offices, 310 East Avenue C, Milano, Texas 76556 We also recommend you read the cover letter about this issue we sent to area officials. We know some are very sympathetic and want to help. Urge them to reach other state officials, including the Governor. And you do the same. Find your state officials here and call the Governor’s hotline at 512.463.2000. Urge them to call for a full audit of the Vista Ridge Project and to rein in SAWS! Thank you for our future generations! Hoping to see you on this coming Saturday, September 21 and on October 3. Got questions? Reply to this message or give us a regular lil’ ol’ phone call at 512.213.4511. P.S. Have you taken our Independent Voter Survey yet? Go to our home page and take it, already, por favor! #PostOakSavannahGroundwaterConservationDistrict #VistaRidge

LIV has some breaking news for your today on a big water coalition move on Vista Ridge — starting in San Antonio today! Can a bunch of officials along this 142 mile, $3.4 billion water pipeline, keep their heads in the sand? Not if we all move together to demand a full independent review of Vista Ridge and for a rein on SAWS — San Antonio’s wayward public water utility. If you live in or near San Antonio, join us today at 10 am at the City Council if you can make it. Read and share our news release, ask your local organizations to endorse this effort and reach your local and state officials, including the Governor!: For Immediate Release! Why Pass the Vista Ridge Resolution and Why Now? Live in Burleson, Milam, Lee or Bastrop counties or nearby? Join us at this event, Impacts and Risks of Vista Ridge , a week from this Saturday, September 21, 3 to 5 pm in Caldwell. Reply to this message to reserve a free seat or call us. Details here . Next week, we’ll have a juicy report for you about the first Redistricting Hearing held in Austin on Tuesday. Voters came together, but will the legislature put down their redistricting weapons? If you live in or near San Antonio, join us at today’s (Thursday, Sept. 12) San Antonio Redistricting hearing. Details here . Do you think the sticker below is funny becuse it’s so true? Then, you might just be an independent Texan. Click on the sticker to do our Independent Voter Survey. And become a member of LIV today, already, won’t you?! #GovernorAbbott #SAWS #VistaRidge

LIV a little. Come see us at these water and redistricting events in Bastrop, Caldwell, Austin, San Antonio, Ft. Worth, Dallas and more real soon! Visit our EVENTS PAGE HERE — with more info below. Join us at one of these urgently important events! Bastrop, THIS COMING Thurs., Sept. 5, 7 pm TOPIC:  The Siege on the Simsboro Update Bluebonnet Electric Coop Community Room, 155 Electric Avenue, Bastrop, TX 78602 If you care about protection of our most precious resource, show up! Sponsored by Simsboro Aquifer Water Defense Fund (SAWDF). More here  •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Caldwell (Burleson County), Sat., Sept. 21, 3 to 5 pm TOPIC:  The Impacts and Risks of Vista Ridge. Caldwell Civic Center, 103 West Hwy. 21, Caldwell, 77836 If you live in Milam, Burleson, Lee and Bastrop Counties, this meeting is for you. More here . Sponsored by LIV and SAWDF More here Note!   Seating is limited — reserve a seat — it’s free!  info@independentleaguetx.org •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Join LIV at upcoming Redistricting Hearings held by the Texas House Redistricting Committee. We support independent citizens redistricting commissions whose members are chosen by lottery. Visit our Political Reform section for more and watch for our testimony coming soon. Austin Hearing, Tues., Sept. 10, 1:30 pm more here San Antonio Hearing, Thurs., Sept. 12, 4:00 pm more here Worth Hearing, Wed., Oct. 9, 4:00 pm more here Dallas Hearing, Thurs., Oct. 11, 4 pm more here If you received a bad link last week for the Independent Voter Survey, try again. And, please accept our apologies. <==Click on the sticker to do the independent Voter Survey! LIV a little or a lot. Dues range from just $10 to $1000 for the year. Visit our Membership page here . Just want to donate some dough for small “d” democracy? Donate here . Wanna volunteer? Fill this out or call us at 512.213.4511. Did you miss LIV’s last News Items? They’re always listed in chronological order in our News Section here . Itching to help? Call us, reply, text, smoke signal, donate…whatever you got, we’ll take it! #gerrymandering #independentcitizensredistricting #independentvotersurvey #Redistricting

Independent Texan, it’s redundant! That’s right especially with 40% of Americans calling themselves independents Did you notice the 2020 election is already underway? Do you agree that the war between the two parties has small “d” democracy in the crosshairs, and is this unacceptable to you? Do you believe the education, development and mobilization of non-aligned independent voters (a 40% plurality of America) could be key to carving solutions that most people can support? TAKE THE INDEPENDENT VOTER SURVEY! Just like Pedro and Regina did before they offered their lovely video clips on our home page here . ►►► We also offer to you this News! SAWS CEO, Robert Puente is WAY Overpaid . Anyone want to guess why Puente, who leads San Antonio’s public water utility, is pulling down $600K per year (includes regular $100K yearly bonsuses) while Austin’s water CEO makes $205K, Houston’s makes $180K and Dallas’ $185K and receive no bonuses? Check out what top Texas water attorney, James Murphy, had to say about it . Are you ready yet to join the only membership association that is educating, developing and mobilizing non-aligned independent voters right here in the great state of Texas? That’s us right here at LIV . Join us ! Dues start at as little as $10 per year. You can also donate to us any old time here . Don’t forget! Do the survey and send your friends to our home page to do the survey, por favor! And, don’t forget that LIV gave you that so true slogan — Independent Texans, it’s redundant! #RobertPuente #SAWS #JamesMurphy #independentvotersurvey #SanAntonioMayorRonNIrenberg

SAWS CEO Robert Puente is WAY Overpaid! James Murphy, leading water attorney and LIV Advisor (pictured here) told you this when Puente’s lavish pay and bonus hit the news on July 2. The good news is that it’s finally in print other than on this blog. According to the Rivard Report, Robert Puente is, by far, the highest paid public water utility CEO in the USA at $496,520 annual salary. Counting his $100,000 yearly bonuses, he is paid nearly three times more than any of the public water utility CEOs in the Texas Triangle. We have confirmed that Houston, Dallas and Austin do not offer bonuses. This graph, published in the Rivard Report on August 4, says it all. Robert Puente’s pay is a big outlier on this graph, prepared by the Rivard Report We told you in our last newsletter article entitled, “ T he Nirenberg One Finger Salute ” Puente’s 5% raise and $100K bonus was passed unanimously on July 2 by the SAWS Board of Trustees. But, we question if two of five of those voting members should not have been allowed to vote. SAWS Chair Berto Guerra’s term ended in May 2018, rendering him term-limited and ineligible for re-appointment. SAWS Trustee Patricia Merritt’s first term also ended in May 2018 with no reappointment as of July 2 of this year. The City is also paying two consultant firms $193,000 to evaluate the CEO’s performance, but leaving ratepayers in the dark about what they are paying for. The same day (August 4) the Rivard Report printed their damning article , Mayor Ron Nirenberg was also in the Rivard calling for an end to bonuses. Mind you, this was after lauding Puente and the raise and bonus in a letter to the SAWS Board on July 2. On August 9, the plot thickened. In an Express News piece entitled, “ San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg calls for an end to bonuses for utility chiefs ,” were these quotes from Nirenberg and Puente: Nirenberg is quoted stating, “Pay incentives for high executive performance should be ‘baked into’ utility executives’ contracts.” Then, Puente is quoted, “If I’m ending up whole, why would I complain about that?” James Murphy, Esq., one of the state’s top water lawyers, said: “We are fortunate that Governor Abbott vetoed HB 1806. It would have allowed SAWS to hide the true cost of Vista Ridge by selling less costly Edwards Aquifer water to Kendall County and requiring SAWS ratepayers to replace it with Vista Ridge water, which is far more expensive — like 5 to 6 times more than wholesale Edwards water.  Puente’s ridiculous compensation package is clearly abusive. But this has Vista Ridge written all over it. The Mayor and Council must now pass the Vista Ridge Resolution and enforce strict oversight of this PUBLIC utility, including its executive management.” See more, “ Governor Turns The Hose (Vista Ridge) on SAWS, Vetoes HB 1806. ” Ellen Berky , LIV-SA Interim Board Member circulated the Governor’s June 15 veto proclamation of key SAWS legislation — House Bill 1806 on Friday, August 9, at the West San Antonio Chamber of Commerce “State of Water” forum where Mr. Puente was speaking. Berky said, “Only in San Antonio do we reward public utility executives with raises and bonuses right after the utility’s pet legislation is vetoed by the Governor.” Meanwhile, SAWS is in overdrive for the April 2020 plan to start pumping the most expensive water in Texas uphill to Northern Bexar County via a 142-mile long pipeline – Vista Ridge. Are you paying attention yet? Live in San Antonio? Here’s what you can do:  Ask your council member to pass the Vista Ridge Resolution for a full audit of Vista Ridge and to rein in SAWS. ( Find your Council member and Mayor here .) Or call 210.207.7040.  Urge the Mayor to cut Puente’s pay down to size, in line with other water CEO’s in Austin, Houston, and Dallas-Ft. Worth. Actually, feel free to suggest that Puente be shown the door.  Ask your Council member to explain to the public why Puente is being paid so much and based on what metrics in his evaluation – make all this PUBLIC!  A coalition in San Antonio are holding regular meetings. Go to our contact page, call our main number at 512.213.4511 or call LIV-SA’s Ellen Berky at 210.737.8421. Live anywhere in Texas? Do this!  Call the Governor’s hotline at 512.463.2000. Leave a message asking him to use his power to push for a full review of Vista Ridge and to NOT “California my water”. That is, no mass conveyance of groundwater for new real estate development in areas without local supply.  Call your state legislators (House and Senate) and urge action to protect our water and our future. Find your legislators here .  Contact us here at LIV as we make plans to be coming to your area soon!  Go to our contact section All of y’all! Join LIV or donate some time or money. Independents are the problem solvers. This is a big problem for everyone in Texas. #BertoGuerra #RobertPuente #SAWS #VistaRidge

It was a treat to be at the West San Antonio Chamber Responsible Growth Forum to hear four San Antonio City Council members, two of them brand new, speak to an important segment of the business community – the West San Antonio Chamber of Commerce — on Wednesday, July 17. Ellen Berky, LIV’s San Antonio Board Member, and Linda Curtis who serves as LIV’s state coordinator (a Bastrop resident) attended together. (Note: LIV is an all-volunteer non-profit, 501c4 organization.) This forum entitled “Responsible Growth” was moderated jointly by the Executive Director of the West Chamber, Kristina Villanueva, and State Representative and former Councilman, Ray Lopez. Selected questions from the chamber membership were presented to the four panel members. We were impressed with the responses of Melissa Havdra (District 6) and Adriana Garcia (District 4). Both of them are highly intelligent and were genuine in their answers to question. We have already seen Councilmember Perry (District 10) in action and always appreciate his candor. Councilmember Pelaez (District 8) used his substantial speaking skills to maneuver himself out of a hotseat regarding his vote on the paid sick leave ordinance, and took a potshot at the Texas think tank which has been proposing that San Antonio privatize CPS Energy. This was our take on the meaning of his quite long answer. He (and “everyone”) thought the Legislature would pass legislation to stop municipalities passing paid sick law ordinances. In other words — again, our interpretation — this was really for show by some city officials. In addition to the sick leave issue, which came to the forefront just as the morning paper reported legal action seeking to invalidate the City’s ordinance, the panel applied their critical faculties to economic development and urban transportation. Councilman Perry went on record opposing increases in car registration fees for what he characterized as the most ‘economically segregated metro area in the United States’ and said the cost for ConnectSA is ‘almost insurmountable’. Councilwoman Garcia focused on how to get young people back to San Antonio after they have been educated elsewhere and said that the city needs to “stop pretending” that we have a great economic development track record, and “get better”. What was quite noticeable to us is that no question was asked about the actual topic of the forum – Responsible Growth. A question we were hoping for was, this: Is the waiver of $87 million (over 10 years) in developer impact fees related to the Vista Ridge Water Supply Project ‘responsible’ in terms of the city’s utilization of one of the few tools they have to, though modestly, make growth pay for itself ? Note that Councilman Perry, the most “pro-business” member currently on the Council (along with progressive Councilmen John Courage and populist, Greg Brockhouse) voted against the waiver. Pelaez voted for the impact fee waivers which passed in May of this year. Garcia and Havdra were not yet on Council. The last question – about the Climate Action Plan – was extremely important. You may know that Mayor Nirenberg is now referring to the “climate emergency” and calling for serious action. The response from Council members at this forum – Havdra, Perry and Garcia (Pelaez was unable to respond to the climate question due to time constraints) – was pretty clear. They, understandably, want to see the real numbers for the costs involved in the climate action plan. Our contention here at LIV Our question on climate action would have been about what can be done now to stop the city’s continued quest to build out the metroplex – a major driver of manmade heat generation. We borrow again here from Fernando Centeno and his article entitled, “The basis of many of our climate woes – the city’s metroplex vision,” printed in the Express News on March 9, 2019 : The most glaring missing piece from the city of San Antonio’s proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan directly impacts the three pillars that define sustainability: economic, environmental and social factors. Namely, there is no discussion or consideration of replacing the city’s long-standing “urban planning” model, which defines success in business terms rather than in socioeconomic terms. This issue is ramping up and we – the independents – intend to be part of the conversation. Any serious climate action plan must start with what can be done now to stop the city from doing more harm to itself. Vista Ridge is a danger to not one, but two aquifers. Make sure you join LIV and hold onto your hats for the very bumpy ride, y’all. PS If you think we need a voter association (not a party) for independent voters (that’s LIV), don’t forget to pay your LIV dues to keep this all-volunteer outfit working for you. #MelissaHavdra #LindaCurtis #EllenBerky #impactfees #climateactionplan #WestSanAntonioChamberofCommerce #AdrianaGarcia #MannyPalaez #VistaRidge #RonNirenberg #RayLopez #ClaytonPerry #KristinaVillanueva

The Nirenberg One Finger Salute is to the Governor of Texas and to San Antonio voters of all persuasions who voted overwhelmingly  (over 217,000 voters at nearly 57%) last November for Prop B — to limit city manager pay and terms. This is true, despite how you feel about the Mayor (an independent, mind you), Republican Governor Abbott, or any party. LIV On the heels of the Governor’s veto of SAWS legislation House Bill 1806 (a SAWS water-grab switcheroo of SA’s Edwards water for Vista Ridge water) what did “Mayor Ron” do? He gave the green light for a 5% raise and $100,000 bonus to SAWS CEO, Robert Puente. Puente is now making $496,520 base pay, nearly $25,000 more than recently forced into retirement City Manager Sheryl Sculley. Alfred E. Puente doesn’t worry about SAWS ratepayers. Alfred E. Puente doesn’t worry about SAWS ratepayers. The same might be said for the Express-News. Their July 16th editorial claims that Puente “performed well” and that his “compensation was in line and comparatively low compared with other utility executives.” If you were a SAWS ratepayer, wouldn’t you like to know how Puente’s pay compares to private and public sector water utility CEO’s? LIV Advisor, James Murphy, Esq. LIV Advisory Board member, James Murphy, one of the top water attorneys in Texas with decades of experience in the public sector, said, “I already know Puente’s pay is way out of line for a public water utility. But, here’s what I found with a simple google search today. Austin Water Utility Director, Greg Mezaros, who has been at the helm at AWU one year longer than Puente’s stint at SAWS, gets paid $200,200 a year, according to the Texas Tribune.” Yes, San Antonio, we have a problem. Union President, Chris Steele, led the San Antonio Professional Firefighters Association to place Props A, B and C on the November 2018 ballot via petition. Short-term political memory is a big problem these days. San Antonio City Manager Sheryl Sculley was famously forced out after San Antonio voters handily passed Prop B last November. Remember, under Prop B the City Manager is to be paid no more than 10 times the lowest paid fulltime worker for the city and limited to serving 8 years. ( See Props A, B and C here .) Are lavish salaries for top executive management of public utilities proper in a city designated the most economically segregated cities in America ? That’s a question that only San Antonio ratepayers and Council members can answer. Apparently, the passage of Prop B hasn’t sent a strong enough message — yet. But, if you believe like we independent organizers do that history is determined more by what comes next, read the rest of this article and get ready for some action. Like Mohammad Ali Wanted Joe Frazier, LIV Wants Puente and Guerra! Puente has become legend among those who follow SAWS record for “massaging” the truth. This piece in 2014 by Politifact tries to be nice about busting the CEO for manipulation of data making false claims about its water conservation program. A few months later, the CEO reversed course on his decision to reject Vista Ridge and went full bore on ramming through Council the Vista Ridge debacle. (Watch the 17- video on our home page “I Oppose the San Antone Hose.”) Berto Guerra, SAWS Board of Trustees Chairman The ever warm and fuzzy, Berto Guerra, swings the axe for an unaccountable SAWS What do we have against the ever warm and fuzzy, Berto Guerra? While pushing unnecessary rate increases for a massive unnecessary water project – Vista Ridge is slated to begin pumping in April 2020 – it seems obvious that Guerra is, let’s say, a bit ethically challenged. To those of us who follow the “SAWS Buzz SAW”, Guerra went to a new low when he donated $35,000 to the Vote No on Props A, B and C campaign last November without blinking an eye. Stan Mitchell and Ellen Berky give Guerra a professional spanking at April 4, 2019 SAWS meeting. Watch Stan Mitchell and LIV’s Ellen Berky get after Guerra and “pay to play” at this SAWS Trustee April meeting — and Guerra’s response. Here’s the real kicker on Guerra. The dude and another SAWS Trustee, Patricia Merritt, were term limited in March 2018 . However, there they both still sit on the SAWS Board, like beached whales, but to provide critical votes on decisions like this appalling Puente pay rip-off. Those leading the charge for the raise and bonus (SAWS Trustees McGee, Merritt and Guerra) didn’t bother to justify their overflowing praise for Puente with even just a tad of data for which the city is paying two firms $193,000. Please see this helpful July 3rd article by Rivard Report writer Brendan Gibbons, who apparently was able to get SAWS to send him data, but this data is not in print here either. We have asked a few Council members to make this information public. Of course, not a word was said about the Governor’s veto of HB 1806 — a big goose egg on Puente’s face and his poor leadership of the SAWS Lobby Team. To be fair, the real problem for San Antonio is really Mayor 51%, Ron Nirenberg, who is like an injured animal that might attack someone trying to help him. The Vista Ridge Resolution, calling for an independent audit of “The Hose” and for accountability at SAWS, is something Nirenberg should embrace, especially in light of his very recent statement about “climate emergency”. (Be sure to read our report about the West San Antonio Chamber breakfast for more on this point.) Ron Nirenberg and Austin Mayor Steve Adler joined forces. Does Nirenberg owe too much to those who saved him from insurgent Greg Brockhouse? Days before the runoff between Nirenberg and Brockhouse, Austin Mayor Steve Adler — a leader in the quest to build out central Texas at any cost — sent a “private letter” (on the Mayor’s letterhead, mind you) to the public asking for donations for Nirenberg’s tight mayoral runoff with Greg Brockhouse. Shortly thereafter, Nirenberg, and four other Council members took all of 30-minutes to cast a vote waiving $87 million in water supply impact fees to developers. It was not even mentioned by the Express-News. Thankfully, Council Members Courage, Perry and Brockhouse voted against this SAWS travesty. Again, to Rivard’s credit, they did this piece on the water impact fee giveaway entitled, “ City Council Spares Developers Maximum Impact Fee for Vista Ridge .” Message to Mayor Ron Nirenberg: You might advise those lobbying you that your unwillingness – so far — to do the right thing by supporting the Vista Ridge Resolution — could, in fact, backfire by upping the ante. Here’s how: Harvard trained community planner, Fernando Centeno, calls himself a “practitioner”. Fernando Centeno, a community planning practitioner (and Harvard graduate), who’s been in the trenches of San Antonio policy for 40 years, shared this insight recently with us: “I call Vista Ridge a ‘son of Sam.’ If I could end it, I would. But it’s SAM we should want to re-write. SAM, aka the SA2020 plan, is the city’s ‘vision’, the vehicle for San Antonio’s so-called economic development agenda for decades. It’s all about business development. Public leaders are obsessed with building a metroplex here by subsidizing an aggressive built environment on a scale in which housing supply could never keep up with demand. This is how San Antonio earned the dubious distinction of being the most economically segregated city in the U.S.” The hopeful news is that City Council members not only have the power to pass the Vista Ridge Resolution – for the audit and SAWS clean up. They can also rewrite SAM (SA2020) to address, in Centeno’s words, “socioeconomic needs rather than to widen the divide by defining success in strict and narrow terms of business.” If you want to read the SA2020 plan, please visit the website linked below. But be aware that despite that thousands of San Antonio residents weighed-in on developing the vision, it’s all about the built environment metroplex. In SA2020, according to Centeno, “San Antonio is left behind.” SA2020 Website We Texans — private citizens, public officials and business  – urban, suburban and rural — are all in this together, but not if you let those feeding at the trough forget who pays the bills. ♦ What you can do ♦ If you’re a SAWS ratepayer, contact the Mayor and Council, preferably by phone — if not, email them. Ask them to: => Pass the Vista Ridge Resolution for a full audit of Vista Ridge and for accountability at SAWS. => Complain to them about Puente’s pay. => Ask them to replace term limited Guerra and Merritt with some independent doers and thinkers through a transparent selection process. => Then, ask them to help you understand the SA2020 plan and its impact on your affordability. ♦ If you’re a Texan, contact Governor Greg Abbott. Ask him to step up to help push for a full audit of Vista Ridge and SAWS accountability. Call the Governor at 512-463-2000 or reach him online here . The Council works for you, if you live in San Antonio. Some of those Council members already know this and will respond to your requests. Learn who they are and get your friends and family ready and registered to vote. Here is the Mayor and Council Members contact information: https://www.sanantonio.gov/Council ♦ We hope to see you at a coalition meeting about the Vista Ridge Resolution on July 23 at 7 pm held at the Amalgamated Transit Workers Hall at 1901 N. Flores. Details here and please do share! ♦ We are happy to have anyone challenge or correct any statements we have made in this article, including city and SAWS officials. You can also call LIV’s San Antonio Board Member, Ellen Berky at 210-737-8421 or email us at info@independentleaguetx.org . #BertoGuerra #SherylSculley #RivardReport #SanAntonioExpressNews #RobertPuente #SAWS #metroplex #GregBrockhouse #VistaRidge #ChrisSteele #SA2020 #RonNirenberg #FernandoCenteno #executivepay

Every year we do all we can to make it to the best conference for anyone who cares about food in Texas. That’s the annual Food and Farm Leadership Conference put on by Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance event. It’s always WELL DONE, no pun intended. Early bird conference fees end on Friday, July 19th. Look for LIV’s table there and join us to invite others to join the independent movement. Lots more here! and here!

Let the Games Begin When it came to ballot access for independent and minor party candidates, the 86th Texas Legislature’s hypocrisy, ignorance, and gamesmanship were clearly on display. This is not surprising. Our elections statutes that apply to anyone who is not a Democrat or Republican is of little concern to those who represent us – except when they impact their chances of gaining or retaining power. Our esteemed legislators were clearly looking over their shoulders at the 2018 election results in anticipation of 2020. A bill that would have repaired Texas’ outdated, and likely unconstitutional, statutes for independent and minor party candidates, HB 4439 , never got a hearing in the House Elections Committee. But two other bills that would have made things worse, HB 2504  and  HB 4416 , cleared the Elections Committee and were considered by the full House. An amended HB 2504 became law. Debates on the House floor were, let’s just say, “enlightening”. HB 4416 , authored by Rep. Mayes Middleton (R-Wallisville), was first up. This bill would have raised the threshold for parties to remain on the Texas ballot from the current 5% of the vote in any statewide race to 10%. The bill was obviously targeted at the Libertarian Party, as this is the only minor party that currently enjoys ballot access in Texas. Rep. Middleton, reportedly wishing to prove his conservative bona fides , was perhaps looking to future elections when the Democrats, given their 2018 showing, might likely fill out the statewide ballot. Raising the threshold from 5% to 10% would probably cause the Libertarian Party to lose ballot access for the 2022 gubernatorial elections, thus improving Republican party chances. Had HB 4416 passed, the Libertarian Party would still be on the 2020 ballot – their 2018 candidate for the Court of Criminal Appeals Place 8 received over 25% of the statewide vote (the sole statewide race without a Democrat running). Grapevine chatter suggested that the Democrats planned to embarrass the Republicans with this bill by claiming that Republicans were anti “voting rights”. Questions from the floor by Democrats reflected this position. Then, out of the blue, Rep. Middleton asked for a postponement until later in the evening. Postponements are typically routinely and unanimously granted. In this case, however, a Democratic legislator demanded a recorded vote. Postponement was granted by a vote of 78 Yea (77R, 1D) to 69 Nay (5R, 64D). Republicans must have needed to talk. Then when the bill came up again later that night, Rep. Middleton asked that it be postponed until March 2, 2020 – the day before the 2020 primary elections, when the legislature is not even in session! This action effectively killed the bill by a face-saving move. Next up was Rep. Drew Springer’s (R-Muenster) HB 2504 , a bill that would require minor party candidates to pay the same filing fees that previously only applied to parties who participate in primary elections. Filing fees were originally introduced to offset the cost of State-funded primaries . Minor parties, unless they are able to achieve 2% of the vote for Governor, select their candidates by convention and therefore place no burden on Texas taxpayers. As might be expected, HB 2504 was opposed by the Libertarian Party since it would have placed an additional financial burden on its candidates and served only to enrich the State’s coffers. Then a miracle happened. When HB 2504 came up for a vote on second reading, Rep. Springer succeeded in adding an amendment that would reduce the ballot retention threshold from 5% to 2% in any of the previous five general elections. During debate on the third reading of the bill the next day, Democrats assailed it on the grounds that the amendment was slipped in at the last minute and left insufficient time to consider this change. Apparently for Democrats, 5% was the baby-bear ballot retention threshold – 10% too hot, 2% too cold. HB 4416 , which the Democrats opposed as being too restrictive, would have eliminated the Libertarian Party from the ballot. HB 2504 as amended, which the Democrats opposed as too lenient, granted Green Party renewed ballot access. It was pretty clear that the legislative debate about “voting rights” boiled down to which major party wanted which minor party on the ballot. The final vote (as amended) was 77 Yea (76R, 1D) to 57 Nay (57D). HB 2504 passed the Senate and was signed by the Governor – a mixed blessing for Texas’ minor parties. The Green Party now has ballot access through at least 2026, Libertarians through 2028. Other parties who manage to gain ballot access (another story for another time) will now have an easier time retaining access – at least until the Texas legislature changes its mind. But there’s a price to pay. Minor party candidates will now have to pay filing fees (or petition in lieu of fees), even though they do not participate in the State’s primary elections. Fortunately, three other bills that would have been detrimental to non-duopoly candidates failed to even get committee hearings. But who knows what 2021 will bring? HB 740 (Reynolds) and SB 359 (Miles) Would have re-introduced straight-party voting (due to expire in 2020) HB 1204 (Anchia) Would have changed Texas to a top-two primary system, effectively eliminating most minor party and independent candidates from the general election ballot HB 4521 (Swanson) Would have required filing fees for independent candidates #GreenParty #LibertarianParty #DrewSpringer #MarkMiller #MaysMiddleton