Rural water raid to benefit developers, not average Texan
Have you ever had a kid ask for seconds during a meal before he’s even finished what’s on his plate? Well, that’s what the
Texas Legislature is asking of voters with
Proposition 6 on November 5.
Lawmakers want Texans to pass this constitutional amendment to
approve more funding for water projects. A similar measure narrowly
passed in November 2011 for a $6 billion revolving fund to loan money to
local government entities for water infrastructure, outside
constitutional debt limitations. Now in 2013, the Texas Legislature is
asking voters for permission to raid $2 billion from the state’s
emergency fund, known as the Rainy Day Fund, to assist local agencies of
government in funding water projects from the state’s water plan.
Governor Rick Perry,
Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, and
Speaker Joe Straus
all committed to making additional water and transportation
infrastructure a priority in the 83rd legislative session, yet neither
was addressed in the base budget.
Lawmakers chose to kick the tough decisions directly to the voters
asking them to use emergency funds to issue more debt, rather than
discipline the use of existing taxes to fund priorities out of the
regular budget (which voters have no control over). A second amendment
pertaining to transportation will follow in 2014.
In essence, they want us to do their jobs for them by putting us in a
box. Pass the amendments or get nothing, or so it seems at first
glance.
Asking for more with $6 billion on the table
The first $6 billion in credit the voters approved in 2011 has yet to be
tapped, and yet here are lawmakers already asking for more. So why the
push for more funding before the last round has even been touched?
Because the special interests who want to build and finance these water
projects want better credit terms than the already favorable,
low-interest $6 billion revolving fund can offer them.
They want to be able to funnel questionable economic development
projects through local water boards and get better credit enhancements,
deferred loan repayments, and/or deferred interest payments than they
could get with the fund established in 2011.
In other words, special interests want taxpayers and ratepayers to
pick-up the tab for “gap funding” between project implementation and
when they can send customers their first bill.
Considering legislators had a record $8 billion surplus in January
and went on a spending spree, having spent 26% more this session than
the previous session, and despite Texas having the
second highest level of local debt in the nation, lawmakers are still asking voters to issue more local debt and to use the state’s emergency funds to do it.
Harvard grad and
State Representative Van Taylor (R – Plano)
likened it to giving someone a credit card with a $6 billion credit
limit only to have them ask for another $2 billion before charging
anything.
Making water unaffordable
Who has to repay all this debt with interest? Ratepayers and taxpayers.
But lawmakers seem un-phased by the fact funding local water projects
with more state-backed debt will push up the price of water to
consumers, possibly to unaffordable levels in very short order.
With other utility bills on the rise, healthcare costs soaring, other
taxes going up, full-time gainful employment shrinking, and sustained
high food and fuel prices despite the domestic shale oil boom (most is
being exported not being used to reduce the cost of gas to U.S.
consumers), making an essential element of daily living like water
unattainable for working families will push many over the edge into
poverty and want.
Turning scarce dollars into slush funds
There’s not sufficient assurance that the true priorities will even get
built, nor is there sufficient assurance that these projects will have
adequate public input to protect rural Texans’ water from being heisted
and used to feed urban developers pet projects. Since decisions will be
made solely by the un-elected
Water Development Board and
funneled through local water districts, there’s plenty of opportunity
for unnecessary projects to be funded ahead of the true priorities.
Look no further than the
Tarrant Regional Water District subsidiary’s recent approval of an
outdoor ice rink, and there’s enough to make voters skeptical.
Threat to farmers
One of the big concerns of TURF is that the funding is not tied to
actual water production or adding capacity, which is what Texas
desperately needs, not taxpayer-financed ice rinks nor stealing from
rural farmers that shifts water from one to another, rather than provide
a net increase of actual water.
Taking water from drought-ridden rural Texans jeopardizes their
ability to make a living and to continue to provide all Texans with the
food we need for daily living. Essentially, the way it’s set-up, Prop 6
would allow government, under the thumb of special interests, to pick
the winners and losers. After the Trans Texas Corridor debacle, the
last thing rural Texans need is another threat to their livelihoods and
way of life.
Sneaky tactics
To add to the thorny debate, lawmakers signaled they knew Prop 6 was in
trouble before they left Austin since they pushed another Rainy Day raid
for transportation to November of 2014.
House Appropriations Chair Jim Pitts was
adamant that passage of the two measures should be tied together to
guarantee they either both pass or both fail. Apparently, he worried
voters would approve transportation and not water. So rather than truly
let the voters decide what they wanted to fund and how, he tried to rig
it to ensure passage of both.
House members balked at directly tying passage of the two measures
together fearing it would anger voters, so a handful of conference
committee leaders moved the transportation measure to 2014 to appear
alone in a completely separate election. Yet when citizens ask for
elected leadership on transportation boards, these same legislators
opine that holding elections is too expensive. Apparently, their
objections don’t apply to holding a separate election of their choosing.
Current transportation funding levels cannot even cover road
maintenance costs, leaving no money for any new capacity or expansion
projects that are sorely needed in congested urban corridors. Over the
next two years, the only new capacity is being built with more debt. The
total cost of the mounting road debt will exceed $31 billion (in
principal and interest). The proposed transportation amendment would
divert half of the oil and gas severance taxes that capitalize the Rainy
Day Fund to roads, estimated to be $1.2 billion annually.
Naturally, lawmakers realize how this would look on the ballot
alongside a $2 billion raid for water projects so soon after asking for a
$6 billion water loan program just two years ago.
Perhaps they’re counting on the short memory of most voters or
counting on low information voters to buy into the scare tactics and
frightening photos of bone dry lakes courtesy of
Water Texas PAC trying to convince voters that
unless they pass this amendment the state will run out of water.
TURF and the ‘Nix Prop 6′ coalition recognize we have dire water
needs in our state, but Prop 6 is not the answer. How we secure a
sustainable water supply and how we fund it must be transparent, must
ensure the public has the ability to sufficiently weigh-in to protect
local water supplies from being depleted by outside areas, and must
actually fund priorities of public necessity, not used as a means to
divert public water supplies and public funds to private interests.
Returning to a fiscally sound, pay-as-you-go plan is the best course
to ensure a prosperous future. Texas voters ought not to be fooled by
the gimmicks and scarce tactics and follow common sense and sound
financial principles – if it isn’t a good idea for your own household
budget, it isn’t a good idea for government or the taxpayers, either.
Vote ‘no’ on Prop 6 and force lawmakers to use the money voters
already approved before asking for more. Better yet, require them to
fund basic infrastructure needs — roads and water — from our existing
taxes in the base budget, not with emergency funds and debt.
Monday-Early Voting begins
