Search Results

This red alert signals a turning point in the Vista Ridge water project – aka the San Antone Hose. COME TO MILANO (MILAM COUNTY) THIS TUESDAY, 5:30 PM! Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District Office 310 Avenue C, Milano, TX 76556 Put a halt to a fast one by the Post Oak District! As usual, the fast one concerns yet another favor to Vista Ridge, aka The San Antone Hose! What’s the deal? In short, the permits Vista Ridge received from Post Oak don’t match up. The right to pump 50,000 acre-feet lasts until 2044 while the right to move it to San Antonio instead of using it at home in the District (the “Transport Permit”) lasts only until 2034 . Whoops! Big money investors don’t like lending billions of dollars to a project that isn’t sewn up, legally. Post Oak wants to sneak those additional 10 years onto the permit without adequate public notice (they gave a few days, instead of the required 10 business days notice) AND without a required public hearing. On Tuesday night, Item 14 (click here for the Board Meeting Agenda_10.03.17 ) suggests that this additional 10 years is an informal “request” for an “insubstantial” change — in a permit for the permanent removal of over 16 billion gallons of groundwater a year! That’s like claiming the Simsboro is “drought proof”. Don’t let Post Oak get away with yet another giveaway to their “partners”, Vista Ridge, Blue Water and San Antonio! SHOW UP, bring family & friends — Milam, Burleson, Lee and Bastrop countians – we all have an interest in the Simsboro formation of the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer. Our additional alerts this week will be sent to folks across Texas, especially the region affected by Vista Ridge — all the way down the pipeline to San Antonio — so keep your eyes peeled. MARK YOUR CALENDARS PLEASE! Monday, October 16, 6:30 pm, First National Bank Main Office Community Room, 489 Highway 71, Bastrop, TX. Come to the Bastrop Independent Pow Wow:  to join in an education session focused on water wars heating up again, a waste transfer station slated for Bastrop (or other nearby counties) and the price tag for litigation involving the city of Bastrop, Bastrop County and BISD. More Info here. Wednesday, October 18, 9 am, 21st District Court, Bastrop County Courthouse , 804 Pecan Street, Bastrop, TX , in the courtroom of Judge Carson Campbell. Got questions or need a ride? Call us at 512.213.4511, text us at 512.657.2089 or email us at info@independentleagueTX.org.

We are happy to provide a 29-minute video this portion of the TCEQ hearing held in Cedar Creek, Texas (Bastrop County) on September 18, 2017.  While you watch it, ask yourself whether this a proper location (Hwy. 21 near the junction of FM 812) for a waste transfer station? This is a high-growth area due to its proximity to Austin. Residents and County Commissioner Mark Meuth, who has long lived in this area, raised very serious and legitimate concerns about traffic hazards. Phil Cook, a “water guardian” and 40-year resident, raised cogent concerns about water resources, including that TCEQ wasn’t even using up-to-date FEMA maps. Much of the property destined for this project is in a floodplain. Our question is whether, in a post-Harvey world, state agencies are going to stop allowing the tail (industry) to wag the dog (citizens and their safety). The answer, in our view, is really up to the citizens placing proper demands on their officials. We are proud of you Cedar Creek citizens who showed up, spoke your minds and asked hard questions — and you were polite too! An organizing committee is active now in the Cedar Creek Community. We will help notify you of their upcoming meetings. Meanwhile, we at the League of Independent Voters, will be co-hosting an event — “Bastrop Pow Wow” with Independent Texans on Monday, October 16. Hope to see y’all there! Details here on Bastrop Pow Wow . Meanwhile, enjoy the video! #LEALCO #TCEQ #WasteTransferStation

We know you love us, we know it’s true, but do you love us enough to pay your membership dues? Nat Love, a typical cowboy in 1907, is a reminder that we need an open range where the ideological and party fences that divide us are taken down so the cowboys and cowgirls, from all heritages, can work together. Join LIV now, partners! #blackcowboy #freedslaves #NatLove

Rather than shoot from the hip on the special session, we provide for you the opinioin of Harvey Kronberg from the Quorum Report. We respect Kronberg and view him as the best analyst of Texas politics. Quorum Report: the 85th Special Session #85thSpecialSession #HarveyKronberg #QuorumReport

*Austin’s hotel occupancy tax (HOT) is estimated to bring in $92 million this year and likely to cross the $100 million mark next year. State law requires the HOT tax be used to benefit and promote tourism to the Austin area. *The HOT tax is skyrocketing because tourists are flocking to Austin for live music; arts and cultural festivals; unique Austin restaurants, businesses, and cultural facilities; UT sports; Barton Springs, the Highland Lakes, and Lady Bird Lake; the State Capitol; family and business trips and the overall beauty of Austin. *The success of the HOT tax has almost nothing to do with the convention center. Less than 2% of Austin visitors come here for conventions at the convention center. *While less than 2% of Austin visitors come for the convention center (CC), the current convention center is consuming over 80% of our HOT tax revenues. *If the Austin CC is expanded, this gross mismatch between spending and benefits will be locked in for decades. Our music and arts communities, our parks and waterways, our historic, natural and cultural resources, and our iconic Austin businesses will continue to suffer and disappear because of escalating costs of living and doing business in Austin. * The Austin CC suffered a $24.3 million net operating loss for FY 2016 (p. 112, CoA, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). This fact was hidden by City Convention Center and Austin Convention and Visitor Bureau staff. *The national convention center business is flat, while convention centers have been expanding across the nation. As a result, there is a glut of supply of CC space chasing a limited demand. This means the Austin CC is forced to give away the space for free or almost free (hence, the $24.3 million 2016 loss).   When voters approved bonds in 1998 to expand the convention center they were never told the center would lose millions of dollars every year. *Almost one-third of claimed “convention center attendance” flows from one single event: SXSW, yet the vast majority of SXSW visitors spend little or no time in the center. *The ACVB and Convention Center Department are hiding critical information on alleged “lost business,” making it impossible to check inflated claims of demand for center space. If the center was successful, it would not have lost more than $24 million last year. *If three (3) additional blocks of prime downtown property are taken off of the tax rolls for the proposed expansion, the City’s analysis estimates over $50 million per year in lost tax revenue in 2031 and beyond for taxing entities (City, AISD, Travis County, ACC, Central Health). *We say we love live music, the arts, our parks and local business: it’s time to support what we say we love and which we are losing every day. FAQs: So if the Convention Center is such a failure, why do some arts and music groups and the mayor say they support the proposed expansion? ACVB and the Convention Center Dept. misled everyone, insisting the CC was wildly successful and that expanding it would throw off more dollars for everyone. The 15% set aside for arts and culture grants would grow along with the expanded center, and thus everyone would benefit. The truth about the eye-popping losses of the convention center was covered up by the skyrocketing collection of HOT tax and hiding the true financials. City staff has still never presented a complete financial picture of either the current CC or the proposed expansion. The estimated $600 million cost of the proposed expansion excludes land purchases, lost property taxes, and year-after-year operating losses. Doesn’t state law limit grants for arts and culture to no more than 15% of the total HOT tax collection? Yes, there is a limit of 15% of collected HOT tax that may be directed to arts and culture grants. As long as we are paying off convention center debt, arts and culture will not get the maximum 15% of collections. Also, other categories of allowed HOT tax spending may benefit live music, the arts, culture, historic preservation, and parks, beyond the specific arts and culture category. For example, funds spent on preservation of historic music and theatre venues may come from the historic preservation category. Funds to promote Austin live music, arts, and historic, nature, and local business tourism can all be funded from the “tourism promotion” category. What happens next and what can we do? The City Council will be figuring out the FY 2018 budget in July and August. We need to tell the council now to direct more of this year’s money to the things that both tourists and residents love about Austin and which we are losing – and direct money away from the wasteful and secretive ACVB (aka “Visit Austin”). We also need to tell the council “No Convention Center Expansion Without An Election” HOT tax revenues needs to be spread around the community, equitably, not poured into one giant hole downtown, so that we can save and benefit local artists, musicians, business owners and the natural and cultural treasures that make Austin Austin. It’s time to stop – not expand – wasteful spending on the convention center dinosaur. Thanks to Save Our Springs Alliance for providing this great fact sheet to the Austin public. #AustinConventionCenter #boondoggle #HOTTaxes

by Mark Miller The Texas Railroad Commission is perhaps the most important, and yet least transparent, agency in Texas government. Its dishonest and misleading name has nothing to do with its actual duties (which is to regulate the state’s ever so important oil and gas industry). And even though at least one Commissioner seat is on the ballot every two years, fewer than 5% of Texas voters are aware of its duties. The Railroad Commission finally passed Sunset Commission review in the 85th Texas Legislature. The Legislature tried twice before starting in 2011, but finally a bill was passed and signed by the Governor in 2017. Though the sunset process could have resulted in important changes at the agency, alas it did not. The Railroad Commission got a pass with essentially no real reform. The League of Independent Voters of Texas is committed to governmental transparency as well as protection of the state’s precious groundwater resources. The Texas Legislature, as it often does, failed to take much needed actions in these two areas. For the purposes of this article, we will highlight three things the Legislature could easily have accomplished that would have been good for voters and good for the state. Change the Name The last three Sunset Commission staff reports list as their most important recommendation changing the name of the Texas Railroad Commission to the Texas Energy Resources Commission. This particular recommendation is such a sane and obvious one that it’s amazing that Legislature again failed to act in 2017. Though at least one Commissioner seat is on the general election ballot every two years (there are three rotating six-year terms), fewer than 5% of voters know that they are voting for Commissioners to regulate the state’s important oil and gas industry. That needs to change. Voters are going to be appalled and disgusted if and when the Legislature ever gets around to renaming the Railroad Commission. Voters are bound to be angered by the fact that this important agency has, for decades, had a misleading and dishonest name. Having a Commission with an avowed dual role as industry champion as well as regulator is already a recipe for voter confusion and anger. The Legislature could have helped bring this agency in from the cold by re-naming it to something voters could understand. Transfer Contested Hearings to State Office of Administrative Hearings and Gas Utility Oversight to the Public Utilities Commission Another Sunset Commission staff recommendation also went unaddressed by the legislature – a recommendation to focus the Railroad Commission on its core responsibilities and transfer its hearings to more appropriate agencies. The Railroad Commission, as with many regulatory agencies, is often criticized for being a state-within-a-state. A single agency creates regulations, executes, and then adjudicates them. This tripartite responsibility is troubling in its own right, but is particularly troubling for an agency that is largely hidden from public view and prone to the worst aspects of regulatory capture. Moving contested hearings out of the Railroad Commission to the independent State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) would have helped blunt public concerns about the Railroad Commission’s neutrality in such hearings. Other agencies in Texas government already are organized in this way. The Railroad Commission has jurisdiction to rule on natural gas utility rates in certain areas outside of municipalities and for utilities that deliver gas to a distribution utility (city-gate). Jurisdiction over other natural gas utility rates falls under the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC). Moving the Railroad Commission’s rate-setting responsibilities to the PUC is another obvious good-government move. The PUC already regulates nearly all private monopolies that provide various utility services around the State. It clearly has the requisite expertise and knowledge to deal with rate-setting issues involved with regulated private monopolies. It should be noted that while Public Utility Commissioners are appointed, Railroad Commissioners are elected. Railroad Commissioners have a long history of receiving campaign donations from people with ties to companies involved with this regulatory function. Need we say no more? Orphaned Wells When an oil and gas company goes out of business, it sometimes leaves behind wells that have not been properly “plugged and abandoned”. The abandonment process requires, among other things, filling a well with cement in a manner such that the well does not provide a future migration path for hazardous subsurface waters into near-surface groundwaters. This process is required of all operators and is highly regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission. The methods used have proven to be safe and effective – but they need to be done. Companies are required to plug and abandon wells no longer in operation. Wells that are left in an un-plugged state by a bankrupt company are called orphaned wells. During every major downturn in the industry the number of orphaned wells, as might be expected, grows. The Texas Natural Resources Code requires Plug and Abandonment Surety Bonds to cover the cost of plugging and abandoning new wells. Because of the backlog of wells in existence before the bonds were required, the value of the required bonds has been insufficient to cover the cost of plugging all the orphaned wells in the state. The responsibility for plugging orphaned wells has been delegated by the Legislature to the Railroad Commission. There is around a 10,000-well backlog (a moving target that changes with economic conditions and industry activity) that potentially threatens the state’s groundwater resources – and that should be dealt with as quickly as possible. In fiscal year 2016, the Railroad Commission was only able to plug 544 wells. There’s obviously much to be done – and insufficient funding. The Texas Legislature failed to provide funding to more quickly deal with this backlog. Perhaps the state should have used some of the money from the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill settlement. The Rainy Day Fund, financed by oil and gas severance taxes, is also an obvious choice for a source of funding to deal with this important and urgent problem. Mark Miller is a retired professor and oil and gas engineer who ran for Railroad Commission on the Libertarian ticket receiving the endorsements of Texas major newspapers in 2016. #PUC #orphanedwells #RailroadCommission #MarkMiller #Texasoilampgas

Michele Gangnes, a longtime fighter to protect our water and land Submitted by LIV Board Members, Calvin Tillman and Michele Gangnes As we wrap up another round of the Texas Legislature, I can’t help but think of another lost opportunity.  This session began with great optimism, as they always do, but in the end, the same old question arises; why did I bother?  Why do I continue to let myself be optimistic, only to be disappointed session after session?  Maybe the disappointment will wear off by the time the 86th Legislature rolls around, but right now, eminent domain reform seems hopeless. “Independent thinking” is needed at the Legislature Texans for Property Rights, a big property rights coalition made a huge push for real eminent domain reform, something that is long overdue in Texas. They held meetings throughout the state before the legislative session began. In other words, they did their homework during the interim session. The leading members were mostly large agricultural groups like the Farm Bureau, Texas and Southwest Cattle Raisers Association, and some wildlife and conservation groups as well. Sen. Lois Kolkhorst was one of the leading politicians working with the coalition on its most important legislation. Legislation was introduced that would have gone a long way in leveling the playing field for property owners dealing with condemnation. This legislation, which was authored by Senator Lois Kolkhorst, would have put significant controls on the information pipeline companies must provide property owners and also require the condemning authority to pay the property owner’s legal fees if the property owner successfully resisted the condemnor’s low-ball offer. It initially appeared that this legislation was going to go somewhere. Then politics got involved. The real teeth in this legislation was the requirement that the condemnor pay the legal fees of the victims if the final judgment was 20% higher than the initial offer. This was meant to discourage low initial offers, which happens most of the time. A study was completed with the assistance of the League of Independent Voters of Texas on the most recent 23 condemnation cases from the Texas Department of Transportation. The cases are from around the entire state, from Houston to Lubbock to Fort Worth.   What this study highlighted was that in instances where the victim disputed the initial offer, the average initial offer was 41% of the final offer and the final settlement was on average 126% higher than the initial offer. So clearly this type of legislation was needed to provide relief to Texas landowners facing eminent domain takings. The TxDOT study indicates that “fair” price may be in the eye of the beholder and that without incurring legal fees to effectively dispute the fairness of a condemnation offer, landowners may be deprived of their legal right to just compensation when property is taken for a public purpose. The hearings for some of these bills went really well with passionate testimonies of property owners who had their lives turned upside down by having their land condemned. Of course, the same old critics of any kind of eminent domain reform were also present.  These critics are the ones who benefit from the current way of doing business.  They made baseless claims of how this would increase litigation and drive up the costs for public projects. These maneuvers really made it plain that landowners are being underpaid for their property through eminent domain.  Sadly, in the end, the invalid arguments won and nothing was accomplished. It was clear that not all of the legislators were attentive during the hours and hours of testimony. While a few asked questions and seemed genuinely interested, others either showed no interest or had no clue of what the witnesses were talking about.  There was absolutely no empathy from the legislators for the victims of the horrific crime of taking someone’s property. I wonder how long we will continue down the path to nowhere.  The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.  Maybe it is time that we consider voting for someone who is not burdened by a particular party, someone who can have an independent thought without the party giving it to them.  This session showed me more than ever why we need a group like the League of Independent Voters of Texas.  Without strong independent thinking, there is little incentive for legislators to care about whose property is being taken and by whom and for what purpose. The League of Independent Voters will continue to pursue eminent domain reform. The League of Independent Voters refuses to take no for an answer on eminent domain reform. Another case in point not addressed in the 2017 session was the proliferation of “eminent domain for private gain.” The League has long been focused on this issue, most recently in connection with the 142-mile water pipeline for the San Antonio/Vista Ridge Project. Under both the federal and Texas constitutions all entities who condemn or “take” private property are required to pay just compensation and to take private property only for public purposes. Thousands of entities in Texas have been delegated eminent domain authority by the Legislature. The League is concerned that there are few standards and protections for landowners to assure that compensation and purpose requirements are met. Also, it is concerned that there be effective oversight, accountability and transparency in the process. Public infrastructure needs of Texas are increasingly expected to be met with private, for-profit initiatives like Vista Ridge. So-called “public-private partnerships” or “P3’s” are being pushed by state and local governments as the way to get public projects constructed. A major reason P3’s are currently favored is that private companies assume project and construction risks and liabilities that the state or city would otherwise incur. Among other consequences, shifting that risk typically involves allowing the private partner, or a captive entity of the private partner that has been granted eminent domain authority, to condemn private property needed/wanted to construct the highway, pipeline or power lines. The governmental partner neither exercises its own ability to condemn nor delegates its authority to the private side. Instead of being actively involved in building the project, the public side simply pays for whatever the project produces and has no direct interaction with landowners. The looming problem is that typically the lower the price paid to take property, the higher the profits for the private partner. The public partner’s “hands off” approach may remove the incentives to pay a fair price to innocent landowners and contributes to lack of accountability and transparency on the private side. In our experience, private partners find it much easier to avoid public scrutiny than governmental condemnors. This is a potential problem for landowners in every such project. However, there is a more fundamental policy problem involved when the private partner has the power to condemn private property. The legal requirement that condemnation may only be exercised for a public purpose may be abused. The private partner’s primary purpose is to enrich itself, and the ability to condemn facilitates this motive. To avoid unfair results, either the governmental partner itself should have to condemn the property or the private partner should be subject to public oversight and scrutiny every step of the way. Otherwise, the private partner should be denied the power to condemn and instead should have to acquire property from willing sellers in arm’s length transactions . So far, it appears that eminent domain will not be addressed in the 30-day special session to begin on July 18th, but The League of Independent Voters will focus on these and related critical issues in the coming interim period between sessions. #CalvinTillman #MicheleGangnes #SenLoisKolkhorst

This Texas Tribune article “ Where $507 Milliion in Texas Enterprise Funds Went ” received only two comments. Is it because we feel hopeless that anything can be done about the state of capitalism we call “crony capitalism”? Here’s another question, based on this section of Vernon’s Civil Statutes : How much tax per Texas household should the Legislature levy to host either of the following conventions in 2020 at “Cowboys Stadium” or, specifically, AT&T Stadium in Arlington? Please write in the dollar amount below which you would support for each convention. Choices: $100               $50                 $25                 $10                 $5                   $1                    $0 Democratic Party __________      Republican Party __________ If you chose $0, you’re with us — fed up with America’s duopoly! Republicans co-opt government as fast as Democrats can grow it. Since the “Great Society 60s” Democrats have pushed programs to serve lower economic classes as vendors from the upper classes, predominantly Republican, have competed to operate them. But is this an alliance of Robinhoods and John Galts? Politicians take credit for helping the poor as big money gets more money – government money! Perhaps nowhere is this ubiquitous and insidious alliance better illustrated than with government subsidies to private corporations, doled out beneath the rationale of job creation? Think “Texas Enterprise Fund.” The Great Economics Divide among Republicans who now dominate Texas government is between free market true believers and crony capitalists. In the 85st Regular Session, legislative agents of cronyism were just fine with letting true believer Senator Konni Burton’s bill to abolish the Texas Enterprise Fund die in committee without a hearing (See SB393). TEF operations are a long way from the free enterprise wonders described by the late economist Milton Friedman. TEF underwrites crony capitalism. It does not harness the power of free markets – where decisions are based on the demand for goods and services and capital allocated accordingly – to achieve worthwhile social ends. It instead promotes lobbying and subsidy allocations based on political clout, while being insufficiently structured to promote merit-based capital formation for laudable quasi-public projects like Clean Energy. It’s bad enough when markets are maligned because of concentrations of wealth. It’s outrageous when wealth concentration is subsidized and pressing societal problems are neglected due to government intervention. Should we be subsidizing car racing at a time when Texans are experiencing water shortages? All jobs are not good jobs. Forget about how much they pay! What if the jobs created are not just created at the expense of other jobs, but are actually detrimental to society? When political “might is right” in lobbying for economic subsidies, then this becomes an inevitable result — “big money over the little guys” and more citizens less able to “vote” with their dollars, as consumers. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) might be justified when a public good, say Texas’ Electric Grid, requires a rapid mobilization of assets to meet a vital demand – prerequisite being government transparency and clear accounting from private companies. But since its inception in 2004 do the operations of TEF pass that test? Submitted by Jeff Harper, LIV Board Member #cronycapitlism #taxsubsidies

North Lee County landowners are speaking out on another commercial-size permit in north Lee County and have requested help from SAWDF to address their concerns. That area is also the site of the Forestar (USA) Real Estate Group’s commercial wells (recently purchased by Archway Water LLC), and is near End-Op/Recharge Texas’ proposed seven wells in Blue and the massive 33-well Vista Ridge Project in Burleson County. “A Ranch” has applied for an 800 gallon per minute well that would fill an Olympic swimming pool almost twice a day. The permit for 443.88 acre-feet (roughly 144.5 million gallons) per year from the Simsboro Aquifer is largely for “recreational” purposes on the “A Ranch” property, a 1,000+ acre ranch off Lee County Road 411. The permit currently does not allow commercial sales of water from the well. The apparent recreational purpose is to fill a 103.8 acre private lake on the ranch, even in a drought of record. One neighbor of “A Ranch” and one Simsboro well owner complained to the Lost Pines Board at the District’s June 21 public hearing on the permit. They voiced concerns about the need for a permit of this size and about adverse effects on their wells. County Judge Paul Fischer spoke earnestly to the Board about his concerns. He urged the Board to take its time and be conservative in its permitting decisions, including the A Ranch permit. Landowners and owners of registered and permitted wells within 5,000 feet of a proposed commercial-size well are notified by mail by Lost Pines about proposed “non-exempt” wells and the related public hearing, and notice is also published in the district. Neither notice mentioned that District Rules (and the Texas Water Code) allow persons affected by proposed permits to protest the permit by requesting a “contested case hearing” of the permit in a formal administrative law proceeding. Landowner Nancy McKee spoke to the District’s general manager in advance of the hearing about how to bring her concerns to the District’s Board. Ronnie and Nancy McKee have been landowners adjacent to “A Ranch” since 1985, and have a well on their property. Ms. McKee told SAWDF, “We are concerned about the well we depend on, and the fact precious groundwater is being pumped at such high volumes to fill a private lake. Soon after we received notice of the hearing on May 16, and at least two other times prior to June 21, I spoke to the District’s manager about making comments to the Board. He never mentioned that I had the right to formally contest this permit instead of just talking to the Board for a few minutes at the hearing. When I got to the hearing, I learned the deadline for filing a formal protest had passed five days before the hearing. I wish I had at least been alerted about our right to protest. Maybe no one violated the letter of the law, but we are certainly disappointed in our groundwater district. The sole representative of “A Ranch” at the hearing was Mike Thornhill, the ranch’s hydrogeology consultant. Mr. Thornhill’s stock answer to several questions posed by the Board was to the effect, “I don’t know the answer, but you can’t by law refuse to issue this permit.” Although members of the audience could not remember a time when an applicant or its counsel failed to appear before the Board to defend a permit, the Board did not press for answers to its questions. Michele Gangnes, a SAWDF board member and longtime water rights champion for Lee County and the Simsboro, said, “The bottom line here is that landowners have responsibility for protecting their own rights. But I also believe that Lost Pines GCD is deliberately avoiding the issue of ‘non-selling’ landowners’ legal rights to the groundwater under their land. They and other districts are deferring too much to big pumpers, either because their lawyers are telling them to keep their heads down or they themselves are just plain afraid of litigation, or both.” Gangnes further noted, “Texas water policy, and now our local regulators, do little to protect landowners who make a living using their groundwater wisely with the hope their grandchildren will be able to live on their land. The whole process of permitting is mysterious and intimidating to the general population. Lost Pines opts for the bare minimum communication with its constituents, but nothing in the District’s rules or the Water Code prevents a district from at least notifying citizens they have formal legal rights when commercial-size wells are permitted. Plenty of us landowners in Lee and Bastrop counties have backed this hard-working district from day one, but it looks like Lost Pines is pre-judging that they would just deny any protest anyway, so why even mention the right to protest. “ Travis Brown, longtime Lee County resident and SAWDF board member said , “It doesn’t matter how many times landowners are told they are not ‘affected’ by a neighbor’s pumping, either because they don’t have a well in the ‘right’ place or don’t have a well at all. Landowners who actually did formally protest the 46,000 acre-foot End Op/Recharge Texas permit are still in court years later because Lost Pines says they aren’t ‘affected enough’ to have standing. Actually,Texas water law makes clear all landowners own the groundwater under their land, and they look to groundwater districts to protect those rights. Pumping under permits issued by Lost Pines are predicted by the State-approved computer groundwater model to produce at least a 363-foot drawdown in the Simsboro under Lee County by 2060.” SAWDF also notes that, according to county public records, the ranch is owned by Houston-based A Handsome Dog LLC, which lists the Dannine Gale Duncan 1990 Grantor Trust as the only one member, officer, director or manager, as of June 29, 2017. SAWDF notes that District rules require both the “applicant” and the “property owner” to be specified in the application, and that the applicant include a sworn affidavit that the application is true and correct, presumably to ensure the permit is enforceable. “A Ranch” is reflected as the sole applicant and landowner instead of A Handsome Dog LLC for the pending permit, and the applicant’s affidavit was sworn by Mr. Skip Avara with no reflection of his authority to sign for either entity. “A Ranch” is apparently owned by the billionaire heirs to the Enterprise Products pipeline and oil storage empire based in Houston. Members of that family also own large parcels of land in Bastrop County, according to appraisal district records. The already-drilled Simbsoro well at “A Ranch” is believed to be within 4,000 feet of two Simsboro wells drilled under Forestar /Archway Water’s permits. However, Forestar’s attorney and the manager of Archway were present at the hearing but raised no concern publicly with the new Simsboro permit, fueling speculation that the owners of “A Ranch” might be involved in Archway’s takeover of the Forestar wells. Very little information is publicly available about Archway, which was formed in mid-June 2017. The Lost Pines Board put off a vote on the “A Ranch” permit for 30-60 days from their June 21st meeting. Apparently, the Board intends to issue the permit but will revisit specific terms of the draft permit concerning potential impermissible “waste” if groundwater pumped into the lake overflows. Since the hearing, SAWDF has received complaints from neighboring landowners whose property has been invaded by water escaping from the lake. Formed in 2016, SAWDF educates and supports central Texans who steward their groundwater to ensure a sustainable future. In addition to landowner rights, SAWDF focuses on protecting our aquifers, and the rivers, streams, ecology and economies that depend on groundwater. SAWDF is concerned about massive water permits in the Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District, and is supporting ongoing efforts of landowners there to challenge the End Op/Recharge Texas permits in Bastrop district court. SAWDF is also communicating with concerned landowners in other districts, such as the Post Oak Savannah Groundwater Conservation District and the Plum Creek Conservation District. Nancy McKee’s written testimony can be found here . SAWDF may be found at www.simsborowaterdefensefund.org , and is doing further investigation of the permit application and options for future actions. SAWDF contact info: Michele Gangnes, 512-461-3179. Gangnes currently also sits on the League of Independent Voters’ Board. Most of this article also ran in the Giddings Times Newspaper on July 12, 2017. #MichaelThornhill #MicheleGangnes #NancyMcKee

This release was just sent to over 1000 media outlets across the state: Urban and Rural Texans Asked to Boot Senate Bills 533 and 1172 Texas Municipal League and High Ranks of the Republican Party Fail Them To be honest with you, we know it is near impossible to defeat bills once they’ve gone through conference committees. These are “agreed upon” supposedly by both houses, but we know for sure, this is a very flawed process that comes from on high. We know some of you were told by legislative offices yesterday that the SAWS amendment had been stripped from SB 533, but alas the Republican “high command” had not yet spoken, and it remains in the bill. So, if you are so moved and you get this in time today (Saturday) or Sunday morning, you can call your own Senator and House Member – to urge them to do the right thing and vote down these bills. Find your legislators here. We will end by acknowledging that though Texans know how to die with our boots on we not only remember the Alamo. We remember what came later when Sam Houston’s army swelled with volunteers. The rest was history. We love you, Texas for whatever you want to do now and for OUR future! #preemption #TexasMunicipalLeague

Urban and Rural Texans Asked to Boot Senate Bills 533 and 1172 Texas Municipal League and High Ranks of the Republican Party Fail Them Bastrop, Texas, 6 pm : The non-profit, non-partisan League of Independent Voters of Texas (LIV) is urging urban and rural Texans to call their legislators to help kill two bills that could come to the floor of the House and Senate tomorrow (Sunday). LIV warns that if Senate Bills 1172 and 533 pass, there could be grave impacts on rural and urban Texas, while those who had the power to protect them in the Texas Municipal League and in the highest ranks of the Republican Party failed to act. MIchele Gangnes, Board Member, League of Independent Voters Michele Gangnes , a rural Lee County attorney and LIV Board Member said, “The part of Senate Bill 533 we tried to remove would allow  large cities far too much leeway in their bidding practices for projects such as the $3.4 billion Vista Ridge water pipeline project, set to drain rural aquifers in Milam, Lee, Burleson and Bastrop counties. It just so happened that San Antonio Water System was in court on Thursday attempting to achieve the very same thing the legislation will do for Vista Ridge, though this legislation will make a far more loosey-goosey bidding process a statewide option for all large cities. It became clear yesterday that the highest ranks of the Republican Party had spoken on this section of the bill and are pushing ahead.” Senate Bill 1172 , a bill captioned as relating to the regulation of seed by a political subdivision, is really about removing local control over the food and fiber that we Texans raise, so claims LIV. Judith McGeary, Executive Director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance Judith McGeary , Executive Director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (“FARFA”), is busy working the halls of the legislature to stop SB 1172. “This bill robs local communities of the ability to address a wide range of agricultural activities that can harm neighboring landowners and the whole community. We helped the Texas Municipal League strip out a dangerous provision that pre-empted local control on many other issues as well, and I’m disappointed to see TML declare “victory” without even acknowledging that the bill still pre-empts local control over not only seeds, but also the ‘cultivation of plants.’ That phrase is not defined anywhere in the statute, and could cover just about anything involved with growing plants — whether in an agricultural, commercial, or residential context.” Linda Curtis, Independent Texans PAC Longtime independent Texas activist, Linda Curtis , of Independent Texans PAC, said, “I applaud the efforts of FARFA to stop SB 1172 and for attempting to work with the Texas Municipal League (TML) to do so. However, TML is known for throwing rural Texas to the wolves and they did it again by failing to support the amendment put forth by Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin) and then crowing about their ‘victory for local control’.” It is unusual for legislators to reject legislation that has gone through conference committees. But the independents point out that Texans know how to die with their boots on. Not only do they remember the Alamo, they remember what came later when Sam Houston’s army swelled with volunteers. The rest was history. More Info on SB 533 More Info on SB 1172 To speak to us call LIV at 512-213-4511 #SB533 #MicheleGangnes #LindaCurtis #JudithMcGeary #farmandranchfreedomalliance #SB1172 #IndependentTexans #TexasMunicipalLeague

This action request is for you to do today or tomorrow — but ASAP! Update Killing Amendment 6 to SB 533 — the SAWS Bid Rigging Maneuver! Again, we ask for your help to kill Amendment 6 to SB 533 by having it stripped from the bill . Our message yesterday has all the details and phone numbers for you to call. To clarify: SAWS and possibly other large cities want to make it easier to cut off the bidding process for large, expensive infrastructure projects, including of course SAWS water infrastructure for the Vista Ridge/San Antone Hose. SAWS has a pending court action for this very purpose . They should let the court decide and they should cease to set new statewide law allowing other municipalities to get into the bid rigging game. Again, here’s that link to yesterday’s message — make your calls or send emails to kill this graveyard dead! Update from FARFA on Kill the Bad Seed Bill! We fought for, and got, an amendment, sponsored by State Representative Eddie Rodriguez, that limits the bill to seeds only. It’s still a bad bill, but a significantly LESS bad bill than before. Given the power of Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, and Farm Bureau behind this bill, even this partial victory is a huge step. Now we need to keep the Rodriguez Amendment in the bill! Click here for all you need today to get this done . We know, you want an end to this terrible session! We do too! We’re hoping that on Monday, the session will end with NO special session called. That’s up to one man – Governor Greg Abbott. #SAWS