Search this site

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

We REALLY need your help to torpedo a SAWS Vista Ridge/San Antone Hose — Amendment #6 to Senate Bill 533 — at the last minute, just like we did in 2015. Remember, we warned you about last minute shenanigans! Today, SAWS (San Antonio Water System) was in a court of law in San Antonio AND at the Legislature with another trumped up “emergency” to build the SAWS hooks up to the Vista Ridge Project (their $3.4 billion, 142-mile mass conveyance water pipeline) at the expense of their ratepayers and despite opposition by landowners over the “donor” aquifer. This affects all central Texas, especially those in the cross-hairs in Hays County where the water will be used to build out at your expense. Explanation:  SAWS wants to amend the Government Code to benefit SAWS and Vista Ridge. That’s what Floor Amendment #6 does — it makes it easy for SAWS to arbitrarily cut off a bid process for the Vista Ridge infrastructure SAWS plans to build at the expense of its ratepayers. That’s right – THINK BID RIGGING that, with Amendment #6, will help establish for SAWS and others across the state who want to rig the process. What to say:  I have no problem with Senate Bill 533, except House Floor Amendment #6, which really must be stripped out of the bill. San Antonio Water System is already in court seeking the same result. We don’t need to invite this abuse of the bidding process — let the court decide and please strip Amendment #6 from SB 533 by the Conference Committee. Here are the Committee members. Below this is more details:  Calls are very important now, as emails will likely get missed this late in the session. House Members of the Conference Committee: Chair:  Rep. Charlie Geren, R-River Oaks: (512) 463-0610 Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Keller:  (512) 463-0690 Rep. Four Price, R-Amarillo:  (512) 463-0470 Rep. Oscar Longoria, D-Penitas: (512) 463-0645 Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin:  (512) 463-0631 Senate Members of the Conference Committee: Chair:  Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound:  (512) 463-0112 Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston: (512) 463-0117 Sen. Juan Hinojosa, D-McAllen: (512) 463-0120 Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville: (512) 463-0103 Sen. Charles Schwertner. R-Bryan: (512) 463-0105 Additional Information : The Government Code says the bid period  for so-called “design-build” projects should be 180 days. Instead S AWS wants it to be only as long as SAWS wants to keep it open — do they have a crony contractor waiting in the wings to swoop in with the preferred bid? Does a bear you know what in the woods? There is no emergency for Vista Ridge that justifies this change! If anything, SAWS continues to bend over backwards to fend off defaults by their private partner in Vista Ridge. To boot, the amendment would apply to all governmental entities with populations or service areas of more than 100,000 people. This invites unnecessary, widespread abuse of bidding for usually high-dollar projects! What should SAWS be required to do instead, if indeed it has an “emergency” in need of a fix? They already have a lawsuit pending in San Antonio –a one-sided, petitioner-friendly (SAWS) “Expedited Declaratory Judgment Act” action to have a court essentially say they don’t need to amend the statute — that it is perfectly “reasonable” for the Judge to “interpret” the Government Code the way SAWS urges, just for SAWS alone, and enter a Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction against any third-party challenges to a shorter bid process — or any challenge to the issuance of debt obligations that SAWS wants its ratepayers to repay with higher water rates. That ruling would bar any disgruntled bidder or any ratepayer from getting in SAWS’ way on those issues, now and forever. They conveniently didn’t tell the Court in their Petition for this ruling that they were already in the Legislature, second-guessing their own “interpretation” of existing law. But now let’s hold them to going forward with the Judge — they apparently don’t really need to change the law, now do they!? And the rest of us don’t need this change either — the Government Code ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Get to it, Texans! Torpedo SAWS handouts! PS Please, please share this widely! #DonnaHoward #SanAntonioWaterSystem #FourPrice #GiovanniCapriglione #JuanHinojosa #SAWS #OscarLongoria #JoanHuffman #JaneNelson #CharlesSchwertner #RobertNIchols #CharlieGeren

Time is flying in the Texas Legislature! We do not know if this alert will reach you in time to make a difference so… please do what you can right away. We also have some updates at the end of this message. Last minute changes to the Water Code are expected to come to the floor of the Senate TODAY by way of Rep. Lyle Larson’s (R-San Antonio) HB 31 . Truthfully, Larson has already secured a big hand off for water marketers, especially Vista Ridge, with the passage of HB 2378 .   HB 2378 sets automatic renewals for export groundwater permits, enabling the water lobby to further maximize profits from  mass movement of groundwater. This was unstoppable. However, what we can do to promote conservation of critical groundwater (aquifer) resources is try to amend a bad water bill —HB 31—if and when it comes to the Senate floor sometime today, this evening or even tomorrow. (The bill would go back to the House for final approval if it manages to get out of the Senate.) Read the remainder of this alert and call your State Representative and State Senator to urge them to support the amendment the League is now calling the “Protection of Water Resources Amendment”. Find your legislator here . We have sent this amendment to HB 31 to both Sen. Lois Kolkhorst in the Senate, and Rep. John Cyrier in the House: (g)  A [groundwater] district may not grant or amend a permit for export of groundwater outside of the district’s boundaries for use in whole or in part by a political subdivision of the state if the state water plan identifies equivalent water supplies from other sources in the applicant’s planning region capable of meeting the production amount sought in the permit application.  This section does not apply to an export permit for the sole benefit of a non-public entity.  Background: State water policy has to impose some burden on the receiving end as well as on the donor side of groundwater — we must all pull together to conserve our natural resources. The proposed amendment is one way of doing that. Far-away municipalities should first do the responsible thing by using the available water supply in their own region, before stripping distant communities of water and burdening their ratepayers unnecessarily with higher utility bills. Another way of doing it is to require them to “prove up” that their residents’ per capita usage will be within state conservation guidelines, both now and 50 years in the future. If they come within state guidelines, we assume they are doing all they can to conserve our precious resource through usage reductions. This in turn produces additional “supply” for their residents and reduces the demand on our aquifers. The point is — the receiving side has to have skin in the game! We think both of these concepts could be woven into the Water Code in the next legislative session, and we are asking that HB 31 not be passed in its current form. It is time for our rural communities to throw down! Otherwise, we are green-lighting mass transfers of groundwater as our priority source of water for the foreseeable future, no matter what other improvements in technology come forward — the private marketers of water won’t politely cancel their perpetual –and profitable— contracts and permits as a show of good citizenship. Again, call your Senator and Representative to ask that they support an amendment to HB 31 – call it an amendment to “Protect Our Groundwater Resources”. We don’t yet have a commitment from Sen. Kolkhorst, but you can watch the Senate by clicking on the video link on this page. Update on the “bad seed bill”, SB 1172 : We know that we likely managed to confuse many of you yesterday with a rushed email alert about Amendment 1 to the already “bad seed” bill (SB 1172). The worst language in “Amendment 1” was, in fact, stripped out. But caution : the amendment that stands now still gives businesses involving seeds the right to sue local governments to remove their regulations, with the burden of proof now shifted onto the municipality. This is potentially breaking the back of local towns and counties in rural Texas. Another thanks to Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance for their efforts to keep us informed. Another bill we suggest you help defeat is HB 1643, thanks to this information from FARFA – this bill would ban drones at Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), defining CAFOS as “critical infrastructure,” in the same “homeland security” category as power plants and petroleum refineries. More here . Mass transfers of water is a core issue of the League of Independent Voters, and protection of land and small “d” democratic process. These are the meat and potato issues that affect every Texan but have so clearly been lost on a legislature run by two parties at war with each other. On that note, please enjoy this discussion of the bathroom bill by a Christian conservative mom who gets it! Thank you for paying attention and asking us to explain ourselves! 🙂 #LoisKolkhorst #VistaRidge #SanAntoneHose #LyleLarson #JohnCyrier

Gutting local control — this is what they were they doing after all the hubbub on bathrooms last night. You heard it here first, thanks to Judith McGeary of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance. An amendment ( Amendment 1 ) came late last night to the already bad seed bill SB 1172, hand out to Monsanto. This nasty “little” amendment is a far reaching attack on local control. The bill is likely to come back for a 3rd reading in a few hours. Though it’s very hard to change outcome on a third reading, we ask you to try. Why? It’s a notice to all House members that the independent movement, currently nipping at their heels, is getting ready now for the next two years to build with their bad seedy deeds. Do this now please! Call your Texas House Representative (or email, if you can’t call) and ask them to “strip Amendment 1 out of SB 1172!” Find your representative here. Background: State Rep. Charlie Geren (R-River Oaks) called the amendment a “citizen suit” provision, but it’s not.  A citizen suit provision gives anyone the right to sue to enforce the law – empowering everyday Texans to make sure government stays in line.  In fact, Geren’s amendment only gives power to those who hold state licenses, permits, or registrations to sue a local government that seeks to regulate them in ANY way. Therefore, instead of the normal law, which requires a plaintiff to prove its case, the burden will be on the local government to prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that its regulation doesn’t “conflict” with state law. Note that farmers aren’t licensed by the state.  So while the Monsanto seed bill has been pushed as a measure to protect farmers (which it’s not), they wouldn’t even have standing under this provision! So really what’s going on? The amendment is NOT limited to the issue of seeds or even the agriculture code – it’s wide open.  It seems to empower any state-licensed business of any kind to sue local governments for any kind of regulation.  This guts local control on almost every issue. If this gets passed, get ready for the real work ahead. That’s right, the parties will have opened the door for an up-from-the-bottom independent voter revolt. They will have brought it on themselves! #badseedbill #CharlieGeren #Monsanto #SB1172

This was taken from an action alert by the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance: We were successful in stalling the bad seed & sprays bill for almost a month — but Monsanto and its allies succeeded in moving it forward yesterday. And just in case we are able to block them on the “traditional” way to pass a bill (i.e. getting it approved by both chambers), they have found a parallel, alternative path. So we have to block them in BOTH chambers now. SB 1172, which would deprive local governments of the ability to regulate seeds or anything involved in the cultivation of plants, will come to the House floor on Sunday for a vote by the full House. If we are able to stop SB 1172, Big Ag’s backup plan is to use the amendment process to essentially bypass the House floor. Yesterday, Senators Perry and Buckingham amended HB 3582, an uncontroversial little bill, to add language that blocks local control of seeds & the cultivation of plants. In effect, they simply copied the language of SB 1172 and pasted it into HB 3582. Since HB 3582 has already passed the House, all they have to do is get the Senate to approve it and convince just one Rep – the House author — to agree to the changes. It’s the sort of ugly political maneuvering that happens at the end of the Texas legislative session. We need your help and FAST! (More information on the bill is after the Take Action sections) TAKE ACTION #1 It is urgent that you call your State Representative as soon as possible and urge him or her to vote NO on SB 1172. Yes, the Reps will be at the Capitol on Saturday because they’re working all through the weekend. You can find out who represents you at http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspx and either call or email them (as always, calls are better). Remember, you want to call your State Representative, not U.S., so scroll down the list to State Rep. At this stage in the session, shorter is better. Just give your name, the town you live in, and say that you’re calling to urge your Representative to vote NO on SB 1172. TAKE ACTION #2 After you call your State Representative, please also call your State Senator and urge him or her to vote NO on HB 3582. Again, just give your name, the town you live in, and say that you’re calling to urge your Representative to vote NO on HB 3582. We know it’s confusing. At this stage in session, the House is voting on Senate bills, and the Senate is voting on House bills, so the bill numbers are correct! MORE INFORMATION SB 1172 would prevent cities and counties from regulating any seed “in any manner, including planting seed or cultivating plants grown from seed,” even though no county or city in Texas has attempted to ban any seeds. SB 1172 would prevent cities and counties from regulating any seed “in any manner, including planting seed or cultivating plants grown from seed,” even though no county or city in Texas has attempted to ban any seeds. Wondering why we are calling it the Monsanto bill for the first time?  Publicly, the bill has been pushed by Farm Bureau, Dow Chemical, and DuPont, who we’ve mentioned before.  But we bumped into a Monsanto lobbyist at the Capitol last week, as he made rounds to try to push the bill forward, confirming our suspicions that they’re also key players behind this bill. We’re up against some of the most powerful companies and lobbies in the country — please help us to fight them! What does blocking local control of seeds mean? No local ban or even restrictions such as buffer zones to limit genetically engineered crops. Even if farmers lose markets because their non-GMO crops become contaminated, local governments would be powerless. Consider that Texas rice farmers were among those who lost hundreds of millions of dollars when their crops were contaminated in 2006. No regulation of bee-killing seed coatings. The bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides are not only used as sprays, but even more often as seed treatments. And this bill removes local control over not only seeds, but a very broad scope of activities. “Cultivating” means “fostering the growth” of the plants, which would include everything people use to grow plants, including fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and even water. The way statutes are interpreted, no words can be redundant — so “cultivate” must mean something besides seeds or their planting. So what does blocking local control of “cultivation” mean? We can think of several things: It would prevent any local regulation of when or where herbicides are sprayed, even to protect neighboring farmers from overspray or to address health issues. The state legislature already took away some of the local governments’ powers a few years ago (in another sneaky move), but at this point, local governments can still adopt special restrictions, as well as enforce the federal and state laws. SB 1172 would take away that remaining local control. It would prevent any local regulation of land applications of manure. Manure is wonderful in moderate quantities, such as when it’s deposited by grazing animals or used as part of an overall sustainable program. But feedlots and CAFOs need someplace to put the mountain of manures and the slurry from the manure lagoons that they create, and that can threaten both human health and our water supplies when they use farm and ranch land essentially as a dumping grounds. As currently written, it would take away the ability for local governments to impose outdoor watering restrictions even in drought. We’ve been told they plan to amend it to address that – but this simply highlights the bizarrely broad scope of this bill … a bill that is supposed to be about seeds extends even to water regulations and drought measures?! And even now, they’re not excluding the topic of water from the bill, just carving out specific areas that will remain local … and pre-empting the rest. Ultimately, the bill blocks local governments from responding to the many situations that we haven’t identified or that come up in the future.  Agriculture is changing constantly, and new problems arise – but local governments’ hands will be tied. The proponents keep claiming that the bill is just about seeds. But they keep refusing to take out the “cultivation” provision. And we’ve seen versions of this bill in other states, and they include fertilizers, herbicides, and more – so it’s pretty clear that they want more than seeds. These issues are best addressed on a local level because the conditions are not uniform across the state.   They depend on what is being grown, the land uses (how much and where is farmland compared to residential) and physical issues such as the topography and climate. Texans need to be able to seek help from their local governments for local concerns! #badseedbill #JudithMcGeary #Monsanto

This legislative water alert is of urgent importance. These bills affect all Texans — in urban, suburban and rural communities. Please act on this information and also ask others to call for Sen. Lois Kolkhorst’s help on four bills. As the chair of the Senate Administration Committee, Sen. Kolkhorst is uniquely positioned to impact legislation that is nearing approval by both the House and Senate. Her committee’s action on bills at this stage can determine their fate — do they go to the Senate floor for final passage, back to the House for further work or nowhere? Sen. Kolkhorst of course represents several of our central Texas counties but she also has state-wide impact in her role as Chairman. She also serves on the Agriculture, Water and Rural Affairs Committee, which still has a role to play in groundwater legislation this session. Please reach Sen. Kolkhorst’s office at 512.463.0118 . Call anytime and leave a message if no one picks up the phone. Again, please convey your concerns about these four pieces of legislation. Please ask Senator Kolkhorst to: 1.    Prevent HB 2378 from being amended to make it any easier for the water marketers to have perpetual export permits for our groundwater. HB 2378 does make groundwater export permits automatically renewable, in sync with the permit to produce the water, but it also preserves existing law that at least allows our groundwater districts some ability to scrutinize the permits periodically. Amending the bill to take away that power or other authority over exports, would further pave the way for draining our aquifers for mass conveyance to distant growth areas — it’s the Gridzilla of pipelines we can’t afford in Texas. HB 2378 is not an ideal bill by any means, and we are still opposed to it; however, even groundwater districts failed to oppose it, and it seems inevitable to pass if it gets to the Senate floor.  Tell Senator Kolkhorst you oppose the bill but at least, don’t let it be further amended by the water marketing lobbies. 2.    Support the passage of HB 3735 with no amendments. The bill requires TCEQ (Texas Commission for Environmental Quality) to continue to issue surface water permits that are consistent with the state and regional water plans. Bad surface water bills have a way of producing bad groundwater bills in future sessions. Our District 17 State Rep. John Cyrier went to bat when the League asked him to help restore the good parts of this bill in the House. Now it’s in the Senate, where Senator Kolkhorst must help in her committee to preserve it again, as is, on its way to final passage. 3.   Do all she can to get a hearing this Thursday in Senator Perry’s Ag, Water and Rural Affairs Committee for Rep. Eddie Lucio’s critically important HB 3166, and to vote it out of Committee and on to the Senate floor. His bill requires “modeled sustainable groundwater pumping” to be considered in the adoption of desired future conditions in groundwater conservation districts. We need this bill to counter the race to drain our aquifers! 4. Hold up SB 1198 in her committee, to wait for next session. There is no reason, now, to turn the Hays-Caldwell Public Utility Agency into a regional water authority. A regional authority with eminent domain and the power to finance mass conveyance projects is too big a move at this time, lacks support from local and regional citizens, and hands the power to condemn private property over to yet another entity that does not have landowner and ratepayer interests at heart. Got questions? Call us anytime between 8 am to 10 pm. Thank you, independent Texans! #SenCharlesPerry #TexasCommissionforEnvironmentalQuality #Gridzilla #TCEQ #RepJohnCyrier