I’ve been meaning to get around to talking about one of the constitutional amendments on the ballot for some time. Now’s the time, even though early voting is over. I wholeheartedly support passage of Prop 6, the so called Water Amendment, and have since I attended the Conservative Roundtable conference back in February.
I realize that many of those folks that I usually agree with are against this amendment. My friend Debra Medina articulates the opposition view to this amendment in her guest column in the Texas Tribune. And the Nix Prop 6 folks have been very active in their opposition. And my co-writer at BigJollyPolitics.com Yvonne Larsen exposed some of the people pushing for the plan.
But the plain fact is that this is one of those cases for which we need to do “something”. And in this case, I believe the “something” that the legislature came up with is pretty darned good for all sides of the issue. This is not a “slush” fund in any sense of the word. Will certain groups make some money off of the projects that will be financed by Prop 6? Absolutely. Is that a bad thing? No, people should get paid for work they do.
If you don’t believe we have a serious problem facing us, I urge you to read the 2012 State Water Plan in detail. You should at least take the time to review the Executive Summary. From the Executive Summary:
HOW MUCH WATER WILL WE REQUIRE?
Although the population is projected to increase 82 percent over 50 years, water demand in Texas is projected to increase by only 22 percent, from about 18 million acre-feet per year in 2010 to a demand of about 22 million acre-feet per year in 2060 (Figure ES.2). Demand for municipal water (including rural county-other) is expected to increase from 4.9 million acre-feet in 2010 to 8.4 million acre-feet in 2060. However, demand for agricultural irrigation water is expected to decrease, from 10 million acre-feet per year in 2010 to about 8.4 million acre-feet per year in 2060, due to more efficient irrigation systems, reduced groundwater supplies, and the transfer of water rights from agricultural to municipal uses. Water demands for manufacturing, steam-electric power generation, and livestock are expected to increase, while mining demand is expected to remain relatively constant.
We simply have to close that gap if we are going to be prosperous in the future.
I talked at length with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst about this subject a couple of months ago. No elected official in Texas knows more about finance that Dewhurst does. In this case, he brought in the best of the best in the financial industry to come up with a plan to finance water projects. It is important to remember that we are not spending $2 Billion from the Rainy Day Fund. We are moving that money from one state account to another and using it as a sort of revolving bank. There are many protections built into the law to avoid a repeat of the CPRIT disaster. Again, this is not a slush fund.
At some point we have to trust the people that we elect to do the right thing. In this case, the Governor, the Lt. Governor, the Speaker, and a vast majority of both the Senate and House support this law.
I do too.
It so happens that Lt. Gov. Dewhurst has written an guest column in the Waco Tribune-Herald that I’m reprinting in full here:
High time to invest in Texas water through Proposition 6
DAVID DEWHURST Guest columnist
Throughout our state’s illustrious history, we have experienced droughts of various duration, severity and impact. The worst to date brought us the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s or the “time it never rained” in the 1950s. Since late 2010, Texas has suffered through a drought of historic proportions which affects all Texans, whether they use water for watering cattle, providing electricity to heat and cool our homes, facilitating oil and gas production or simply cooking a family meal.
With the nation’s best economy and a population on track to almost double in the next 50 years, our state is at a crossroads. On Tuesday Texans can take a serious step toward maintaining our economic strength and sustaining our singular quality of life by supporting Proposition 6.
The current drought isn’t the first to hit Texas and we can be sure it isn’t the last. That’s why I have worked so hard to provide for our future water supply needs. From the beginning of my time as your lieutenant governor, water has been one of my top priorities. Some legislators got tired of me pulling them into meetings on the topic, but that persistence led to my Senate Bill 3 in 2007, protecting sites for future water reservoirs across the state, as well as requiring uniform draw-down rates from common aquifers. In the process, I also helped create a series of funding mechanisms to cover key phases of the state water plan.
This year, I worked long hours with Sen. Troy Fraser, Rep. Allan Ritter and the Texas Water Development Board to pass SJR 1, House Bill 4 and HB 1025, which would transfer $2 billion from our state’s savings account to the State Water Implementation Fund (SWIFT) for construction lending on projects enhancing our state’s water resources. The single remaining milestone in this process is voter approval of the resulting resolution, Proposition 6.
In the same way the government has a moral, ethical and legal obligation to protect its citizens, we’re also responsible for certain infrastructure elements, including roads and water. Without adequate water supplies, the public’s health, safety and welfare are jeopardized and our economy is placed at risk. Proposition 6 helps Texas avoid that peril by lending construction financing for water supply projects at affordable interest rates to entities like cities, water districts and river authorities. This fiscally conservative approach to water project development ultimately benefits Texas taxpayers and consumers.
As a result of our state’s robust economic growth and your Legislature’s fiscally conservative practices, our Rainy Day Fund has grown over the past 10 years from just $7 million to more than $11 billion at the end of this biennium. (This is more than the state comptroller needs to maintain our AAA credit rating.) Drawn from this surplus, the $2 billion investment will serve as a revolving fund from which Texas can lend, then be repaid with interest over and over again.
On Tuesday, Texas voters can secure our state’s water future by voting for and approving Proposition 6. This conservative, common-sense investment in what most would consider our state’s most important resource will strengthen our state and help create opportunity as big as Texas for generations to come. I hope you’ll join me at the polls and vote yes on Proposition 6.
Doing “something” like funding the squandering not just of money, but our most precious resource — that’s Texas water — could actually hurt, which is why Prop 6 should be defeated. Don’t let the Perry gang get their hands into the Rainy Day cookie jar.
We might actually need that money once we get the Water Board under control. They are now just three paid Perry cronies who will — watch, you’ll see — be pushing projects that harm our cheapest way to deal with the water crisis — conservation. They’ll be pushing more raids on rural aquifers for almighty growth, draining these resources dry before they fix their leaky pipes in cities and serious rural ag conservation projects.
Nix Prop 6 on Facebook or go to IndyTexans.org
Linda, I would love to see a picture of those Prop 6 lanyards and placemats!!
In my opinion, the net effect of this could be that – in addition to endangering the
principal of the Rainy Day Fund — it eases the legislature’s burden to finance water projects, in much the same way the lottery does for education. When more money is added to the pot from another fund the legislature has historically reduced the general
fund obligation for that purpose, resulting in a “net zero” funding scenario. In this case it is also likely to affect Texas’ perfect credit rating; as the Rainy Day Fund has grown in Texas, rating agencies have been more likely to bestow better and better ratings. A somewhat respectable (for a state) AA became AA+ became AAA. For these reasons I’m voting “no” on Prop 6.
I’d like to have hint to what water sources are going to be enhanced before handing this over to a three member appointed board. The available water is finite and all pretty much claimed.
I would really like to know EXACTLY what the plan is before I vote for it. I will be moving to an area that is in desperate need of water – they are on water rationing 12 months out of the year. But I just can’t hand over $2billion without knowing what it will be used for specifically. All I can find online is the rhetoric from both sides of the issue. I wish I had been able to go to the roundtable discussion on this too. I might have gotten answers to my question: What is the specific plan that WILL definitely help the water shortage in this state? Where, when and how. Do you know this information David? 🙂
Joan, most of the information you want is in the State Water Plan linked above. No rhetoric, just facts.
We did extensive research on this amendment that is contained in a white paper on our Nix Prop 6 page. It’s the second link on this page; http://www.indytexans.com/vote-no-on-prop-6/
The point is that it’s a slush fund, meaning that there are 526 projects in the Texas Water Plan and these three appointees will choose which ones get the money, since $2B will only fund a fraction of projects in the goody bag.
You can also read a release we put out after we spoke with former Texas Water Development Board members and senior staff here. It has all kinds of very specific pieces of information that should tell you enough to vote no: http://www.indytexans.com/2013/10/24/former-twdbers-spill-the-beans-on-prop-6/
Linda Curtis, Independent Texans
Why not allocate water via a market mechanism? The idea that there are shortages of water because it doesn’t rain enough is kind of silly. It doesn’t rain any Snickers bars, locomotives or measles vaccines, and yet we have those in abundance.
You comparison is illogical. A free market can respond to demand for candies, trains, and medicines. It has no ability to increase the supply of precipitation.
A market can allocate any scarce resource to its highest-valued use. It’s not just the Austrians who believe that there’s no such thing as a “shortage,” just an allocation of goods that doesn’t efficiently clear the market by moving the goods to the purchasers who value them most highly.