By DFWRCC - Feb. 7, 2008ARLINGTON, TX - Feb. 7, 2008: DFW Regional Concerned Citizens, a watchdog activists group/think tank, formally endorses Dale Henry for Railroad Commissioner. DFW Regional Concerned Citizens recognized Mr. Henry last year as 2007 Texan Friend of the Environment for his service in educating citizens about safety and water conservation as gas drilling escalated in the densely populated Barnett Shale region of NCTexas. DFW Regional Concerned Citizens rarely endorses candidates in the primary, however, all of the founding members of DFWRCC voted to endorse Mr. Henry for Railroad Commissioner because of their consensus that his expertise as a safety engineer in the petroleum industry and work on milestone renewable energy projects, water conservation and research and development in technologies to increase the output of existing oil and gas wells better equips him to understand and regulate the Texas energy sector.
Mr. Henry, a retired UT Austin trained petroleum engineer, has devoted his life since retirement to pro-bono service to neighborhood and environmental citizens' groups during turbulent years when the Railroad Commission has failed to protect the environment, neighborhoods, schools and homes from industrial encroachments by gas and oil producers. Mr. Henry understands what regulations are necessary and what are excessive. He has used previous runs for Railroad Commissioner as opportunities to highlight shortcomings in the regulations which endanger and have cost lives in Texas.
It is our opinion that Mr. Henry's presence on the Railroad Commisssion will be beneficial to other members and to the citizens of this State. His belief that Railroad Commission inspectors, who currently work only weekdays, should be on-duty nights and weekends when most wells are drilled, makes sense to us. We believe that his experience in the industry will enable the Railroad Commission to understand the ramifications of how energy regulation is implemented in Texas.
Dale Henry has assisted TxSharon, a respected blogger who has documented failures of the Railroad Commission to protect citizens of North Central Texas from water contamination by Injection Wells and chemical disposal ponds. He has assisted citizens in the DFW metroplex in understanding the gas drilling/transportation process so that they could participate with their local city councils in passing stronger ordinances.
For the past three years Dale Henry has traveled the State of Texas talking with citizens and speaking out at public hearings against the Trans Texas Corridor. Mr. Henry understands the danger in running pipelines too near major traffic corridors. He objects to the exercise of eminent domain for private/public infrastructure projects. Whenever a government exercises eminent domain, the project should be totally for the public good is the message he has consistently delivered to lawmakers, citizens and the Texas Department of Transportation.
In making this endorsement, DFWRCC is stating the co-founders opinion that Mr. Henry is the best qualified candidate in either the Democratic Primary or Republican Primary to serve on the Railroad Commission at this time.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
Dewhurst has doubts about TxDOT numbers
By Ben Wear - Austin American Statesman - Monday, February 4, 2008
Count Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst among those skeptical about the Texas Department of Transportation’s claims that the till is nearly empty.
Dewhurst, whose main duty as lite guv is to preside over the 31-member Texas Senate, sent Texas Transportation Commission Chairwoman Hope Andrade a letter late Friday expressing his “concern” over what TxDOT “is portraying as a serious and immediate shortfall in funding for transportation projects.”
Dewhurst, in the letter, referenced TxDOT deputy executive director Steve Simmons saying the agency, based on the current spending plan and the agency’s estimates of incoming money, would have a $3.6 billion shortfall by 2015. How is that a problem, Dewhurst wondered, when the Legislature has given the agency tolls allowing it to borrow up to $9 billion additional dollars? He said that available money wasn’t included in the evaluation showing the shortfall.
He’s referring to $5 billion in general fund borrowing authorized by voters in November (although the Legislature would have to act to make that happen, Dewhurst and others have said that is a near certainty), $1.3 billion of additional borrowing capacity in the Texas Mobility Fund and $3 billion in additional authority to borrow against future gas tax revenues. Dewhurst said he and other legislative leaders made it clear last fall in private meetings with the late Ric Williamson, then chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission, that the Legislature would do whatever it took to back that borrowing as well.
“I’m at a loss to see why they’re saying (that) now when we’ve given them additional tools they’ve chosen not to take advantage of,” Dewhurst said in an interview late Friday afternoon. “It appears they haven’t used them. Maybe we’re wrong.”
TxDOT officials were not available early Monday for comment. But I’ll be hearing from them later in the day and will post what they have to say.
TxDOT announced late last year that it would suspend awarding new construction contracts as of Feb. 1. By no means did that bring everything to a halt, however. Projects that already were under construction, or far enough down the procurement line, will still be finished. And there are other projects, such as the Trans-Texas Corridor tollways paralleling Interstate 35 and in the notional I-69 corridor, that are steaming ahead on their environmental and design work. And in the Dallas area, there is $3.2 billion available that the North Texas Tollway Authority just agreed to pay TxDOT for the right to build and profit from a key tollway. That money remains available.
But other projects — including several in the Austin area — have been put on hold, and legislators are both unhappy and suspicious about it all. So suspicious, in fact, that the Senate Finance and Transportation committees will hold a joint meeting Tuesday morning to grill TxDOT officials about all this.
Read more in the Austin American Statesman
Count Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst among those skeptical about the Texas Department of Transportation’s claims that the till is nearly empty.
Dewhurst, whose main duty as lite guv is to preside over the 31-member Texas Senate, sent Texas Transportation Commission Chairwoman Hope Andrade a letter late Friday expressing his “concern” over what TxDOT “is portraying as a serious and immediate shortfall in funding for transportation projects.”
Dewhurst, in the letter, referenced TxDOT deputy executive director Steve Simmons saying the agency, based on the current spending plan and the agency’s estimates of incoming money, would have a $3.6 billion shortfall by 2015. How is that a problem, Dewhurst wondered, when the Legislature has given the agency tolls allowing it to borrow up to $9 billion additional dollars? He said that available money wasn’t included in the evaluation showing the shortfall.
He’s referring to $5 billion in general fund borrowing authorized by voters in November (although the Legislature would have to act to make that happen, Dewhurst and others have said that is a near certainty), $1.3 billion of additional borrowing capacity in the Texas Mobility Fund and $3 billion in additional authority to borrow against future gas tax revenues. Dewhurst said he and other legislative leaders made it clear last fall in private meetings with the late Ric Williamson, then chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission, that the Legislature would do whatever it took to back that borrowing as well.
“I’m at a loss to see why they’re saying (that) now when we’ve given them additional tools they’ve chosen not to take advantage of,” Dewhurst said in an interview late Friday afternoon. “It appears they haven’t used them. Maybe we’re wrong.”
TxDOT officials were not available early Monday for comment. But I’ll be hearing from them later in the day and will post what they have to say.
TxDOT announced late last year that it would suspend awarding new construction contracts as of Feb. 1. By no means did that bring everything to a halt, however. Projects that already were under construction, or far enough down the procurement line, will still be finished. And there are other projects, such as the Trans-Texas Corridor tollways paralleling Interstate 35 and in the notional I-69 corridor, that are steaming ahead on their environmental and design work. And in the Dallas area, there is $3.2 billion available that the North Texas Tollway Authority just agreed to pay TxDOT for the right to build and profit from a key tollway. That money remains available.
But other projects — including several in the Austin area — have been put on hold, and legislators are both unhappy and suspicious about it all. So suspicious, in fact, that the Senate Finance and Transportation committees will hold a joint meeting Tuesday morning to grill TxDOT officials about all this.
Read more in the Austin American Statesman
Seeking Individuals Interested in Serving On the Corridor Advisory Committees
Excerpted from TX Rep. Betty Brown’s 2/1/08 e-Newsletter
Recently, the Texas Transportation Commission approved rules establishing Corridor Advisory Committees and Corridor Segment Committees. These committees will assist the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) with planning and decision-making for important corridors such as the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC).
Corridor Advisory Committees will assist TxDOT in the transportation planning process for major corridors of the state. Initially, two advisory committees will be established. One will focus on the Interstate 35 corridor (including TTC-35) and the other will focus on the planned Interstate 69 corridor, including I-69/TTC. Each Corridor Advisory Committee will focus on a broad overview of the project and its overall development. They will seek to build consensus among affected communities, governmental entities, and other interested parties for transportation. If you are interested in participating in the Corridor Advisory Committees, please contact my office by February 7.
In addition, TxDOT will begin setting up Corridor Segment Committees, which will focus on individual segments of the TTC. These committees will provide input and advice to TxDOT regarding designation of a specific route or what component of the TTC is needed for the respective segment of the corridor.
Membership for the segment committees will specifically include one member appointed by the County Judge of each county in which the proposed segment is located. In addition, on member will be appointed by each Metropolitan Planning Organization within whose boundaries all or part of the proposed segment may be located.
Recently, the Texas Transportation Commission approved rules establishing Corridor Advisory Committees and Corridor Segment Committees. These committees will assist the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) with planning and decision-making for important corridors such as the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC).
Corridor Advisory Committees will assist TxDOT in the transportation planning process for major corridors of the state. Initially, two advisory committees will be established. One will focus on the Interstate 35 corridor (including TTC-35) and the other will focus on the planned Interstate 69 corridor, including I-69/TTC. Each Corridor Advisory Committee will focus on a broad overview of the project and its overall development. They will seek to build consensus among affected communities, governmental entities, and other interested parties for transportation. If you are interested in participating in the Corridor Advisory Committees, please contact my office by February 7.
In addition, TxDOT will begin setting up Corridor Segment Committees, which will focus on individual segments of the TTC. These committees will provide input and advice to TxDOT regarding designation of a specific route or what component of the TTC is needed for the respective segment of the corridor.
Membership for the segment committees will specifically include one member appointed by the County Judge of each county in which the proposed segment is located. In addition, on member will be appointed by each Metropolitan Planning Organization within whose boundaries all or part of the proposed segment may be located.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Gas pipelines have few rules, property owners discover - Companies can - and do - build where they wish
By JAY PARSONS - The Dallas Morning News - Tuesday, January 29, 2008
GRAYSON COUNTY – The roar of an uninvited bulldozer woke up George and Barbara Woodroof on a recent Tuesday morning. Mr. Woodroof took a last look outside his bedroom window at the hill covered with oak trees.
A week later, bulldozers had cleared hundreds of trees and a wide swath of nature on the couple's property to make way for a 36-inch-wide, high-pressure natural gas line that passes 290 feet from their home.
The Woodroofs don't want the pipeline, but they can't stop Houston-based Energy Transfer Partners from taking their land. Neither can county or state officials. Neither can most courts.
The reach of the gas-drilling boom in Denton and Tarrant counties extends to properties miles from the nearest gas wells, adding a twist to the long-running debate over Texas' eminent domain laws.
Gas companies often use eminent domain powers similar to governments' to acquire land for pipelines. But unlike government, for-profit businesses condemn land largely without oversight or democratic process. They don't typically go through public hearings, environmental reviews or impact studies. Gas companies need only to fill out a one-page form and pay landowners for whatever land they take – a system far more lax than federal standards.
Texas has more than 43,000 miles of intrastate pipelines – the most of any state in the country. And more are coming as production increases in the Barnett Shale – an expansive gas pocket beneath 18 counties, including Denton and Tarrant. Gas production soared from 79 billion cubic feet in 2000 to 698 billion in 2006.
"Right now the Barnett Shale is very prolific," said James Tobin, a natural gas analyst for the federal Energy Information Administration. "There are a lot of new pipelines being built in and out of there by a number of different companies."
Gas companies and some government officials say new pipelines provide a public service – expanding the market to increase supply and decrease costs for consumers.
Here in Grayson County, the Woodroofs and at least 29 other landowners are taking their only legal recourse – asking courts to force Energy Transfer to pay more for their land. The company is building a 140-mile pipeline connecting its gas wells to distribution plants in East Texas, a feeding point for gas going to other parts of the country.
An Energy Transfer spokeswoman said the company needs more pipelines to handle the Barnett Shale's production and uses eminent domain as a "last resort."
Eminent domain
Eminent domain has become a hot topic across the state. Texans are more familiar with eminent domain in the hands of government. The state uses that authority to make room for new roads. Arlington used it to clear land for the new Dallas Cowboys stadium.
A lesser-known provision allows for-profit businesses to condemn property to build utility lines, including valuable high-pressure gas lines. Almost any utility company can acquire eminent domain power with little government vetting – a system that allows private companies to operate more quickly and less democratically than government.
"It's a huge problem," said state Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, who represents Grayson County. "It's property rights fundamental to our freedom. It'll be on the top of our legislative agenda in '09."
Mr. Estes and others agree private companies should retain eminent domain authority but insist state laws tilt too heavily against landowners.
For pipelines crossing state lines, more stringent federal rules kick in. That approval process takes an average of 15 months and includes environmental studies and a public announcement, according to the Energy Information Administration.
But none of that happens in Texas. The Railroad Commission – the state agency that oversees pipelines – acts only as a safety inspector and records repository.
Gas companies can build lines almost anywhere, though they must follow basic safety rules. There's no review process and no incentive to move lines away from houses or bury them deeper to minimize the impact on future development. Nor are they encouraged to use existing utility easements, leaving instead an uncoordinated web often affecting more landowners.
"To [companies], hooking up wells and getting the commodity to the market is the first and foremost concern," said Pat Nugent, executive director of the Texas Pipeline Association, which represents pipeline companies. "If you have crews out there who run into bureaucratic red tape, they would have a real problem with that."
The result is that landowners – and public officials who represent them – often don't know about a pipeline until a surveyor knocks on their door to stake out a route.
"We need to get some laws in this state so the landowners have some rights again," Mr. Woodroof said.
Vetoed
In the last session, Mr. Estes supported House Bill 2006 to ensure that landowners receive fair-market prices in eminent domain cases. Property rights groups backed the bill. So did the Texas Pipeline Association. The bill passed 125-11 in the House and 29-1 in the Senate. But Gov. Rick Perry vetoed it, saying it would raise the cost of public projects by more than $1 billion.
"That was probably the biggest slap in the face that has ever happened to property owners in the state of Texas," said Joe Maley, organization director for the Texas Farm Bureau, which claims more than 400,000 members.
Mr. Perry did sign a related bill, known as the Landowner's Bill of Rights, which takes effect Friday. It assures "adequate compensation." But there are often two different definitions for it – the condemner's and the landowner's.
In the Woodroofs' case, Energy Transfer valued their 5.6 acres at $104,000. The Woodroofs valued it at $1.4 million, which takes into account estimated long-term damage to their remaining 470 acres. The price is being contested.
Property rights advocates say companies have little incentive to negotiate prices with landowners. Even if landowners win more money for the land taken, they can't recoup court and legal fees.
Landowners also don't like the payment structure. Mineral rights owners receive a stream of royalty checks when companies drill a gas well. But when taking land to transfer that gas, companies write only a one-time check that landowners argue doesn't cover the long-term costs of developing around a pipeline.
"We're paying the price for the transportation of someone else's gas," said Sissy Shankles, who has three pipelines on separate easements on her land near Burleson.
Once a pipeline goes in, gas companies can limit what landowners put above it and up to 25 feet on either side of it. Pipeline companies said they will work with landowners, but some developers said the extra hurdles often raise costs.
"You think you own it, but you don't," said Bob Sanford, whose 440-acre property in Grayson County is being crossed by Energy Transfer.
Mr. Woodroof said he asked Energy Transfer to build the line farther south, away from his home. He also wanted a guarantee the pipes would be deeper than 3 feet to minimize the impact on future development. Both requests were denied, he said.
Energy Transfer "tries to work with landowners to accommodate requests when they can," spokeswoman Vicki Granado said, declining to discuss specifics. "In some cases, they can move lines, and in some cases they can't. As a company, they try really hard."
Mr. Woodroof said the company made no effort to work with him.
"The rules will change when someone hits a gas line and 10 houses burn down," said Michelle Jones, the Woodroofs' attorney. "That'll be when they do something."
Rules for building a gas pipeline in Texas
To build a pipeline in Texas, companies must:
Step 1: Fill out a one-page form, called a T-4, to obtain a permit from the Railroad Commission of Texas. Operators must renew the permit annually.
Step 2: Pick a route for the pipeline and request the affected landowners' permission to survey their properties. If landowners refuse, companies may sue for access. State or local government approval is not required.
Step 3: Make offers to landowners for taking easements up to 50 feet wide. If the two sides can't reach a deal, the company may condemn the property. At that point, a special commissioners court sets the price. Once a price is set, the company can begin construction – even if the landowner appeals. Landowners can contest only the price, not the company's right to their property. Landowners can't recover legal fees – even if courts rule in their favor.
Step 4: File a construction report with the Railroad Commission at least 30 days before work begins.
Step 5: Begin construction. Landowners retain access to the pipeline easements but are restricted in how that land can be used. Developers must obtain permission from pipeline companies to build roads or water lines over the pipelines. No structures can be built on top of a pipeline.
Note: Pipelines carrying toxic, so-called sour gas have additional restrictions.
SOURCE: Dallas Morning News research
Regulation of gas pipelines in Texas
Here's a look at the state's regulation of gas pipelines and the rights of affected landowners:
What's the issue? Energy companies can build pipelines almost anywhere without any government involvement or permission from landowners.
Who regulates gas pipelines? The Railroad Commission of Texas was established in 1891 to regulate the rail industry. But today's Railroad Commission has nothing to do with railroads, as that authority was transferred to the Texas Department of Transportation in 2005. Instead, the commission primarily oversees the energy industry.
What's the Railroad Commission's role? The commission's primary roles are to conduct pipeline safety evaluations and act as a records repository. If companies meet state standards and fill out the proper paperwork, the commission cannot stop a pipeline project or examine the proposed route before construction begins.
What rights do landowners have? Not many. Last year, the Legislature passed the Landowner's Bill of Rights, which becomes official Friday. The document spells out 10 rights, including the right to hire an attorney and the right to "adequate compensation," though the term is undefined. Landowners do not have the right to challenge the pipeline route, but they can go to a special commissioners court to seek more money from the pipeline company. Landowners can appeal that price through the court system but cannot recoup any legal fees.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News
GRAYSON COUNTY – The roar of an uninvited bulldozer woke up George and Barbara Woodroof on a recent Tuesday morning. Mr. Woodroof took a last look outside his bedroom window at the hill covered with oak trees.
A week later, bulldozers had cleared hundreds of trees and a wide swath of nature on the couple's property to make way for a 36-inch-wide, high-pressure natural gas line that passes 290 feet from their home.
The Woodroofs don't want the pipeline, but they can't stop Houston-based Energy Transfer Partners from taking their land. Neither can county or state officials. Neither can most courts.
The reach of the gas-drilling boom in Denton and Tarrant counties extends to properties miles from the nearest gas wells, adding a twist to the long-running debate over Texas' eminent domain laws.
Gas companies often use eminent domain powers similar to governments' to acquire land for pipelines. But unlike government, for-profit businesses condemn land largely without oversight or democratic process. They don't typically go through public hearings, environmental reviews or impact studies. Gas companies need only to fill out a one-page form and pay landowners for whatever land they take – a system far more lax than federal standards.
Texas has more than 43,000 miles of intrastate pipelines – the most of any state in the country. And more are coming as production increases in the Barnett Shale – an expansive gas pocket beneath 18 counties, including Denton and Tarrant. Gas production soared from 79 billion cubic feet in 2000 to 698 billion in 2006.
"Right now the Barnett Shale is very prolific," said James Tobin, a natural gas analyst for the federal Energy Information Administration. "There are a lot of new pipelines being built in and out of there by a number of different companies."
Gas companies and some government officials say new pipelines provide a public service – expanding the market to increase supply and decrease costs for consumers.
Here in Grayson County, the Woodroofs and at least 29 other landowners are taking their only legal recourse – asking courts to force Energy Transfer to pay more for their land. The company is building a 140-mile pipeline connecting its gas wells to distribution plants in East Texas, a feeding point for gas going to other parts of the country.
An Energy Transfer spokeswoman said the company needs more pipelines to handle the Barnett Shale's production and uses eminent domain as a "last resort."
Eminent domain
Eminent domain has become a hot topic across the state. Texans are more familiar with eminent domain in the hands of government. The state uses that authority to make room for new roads. Arlington used it to clear land for the new Dallas Cowboys stadium.
A lesser-known provision allows for-profit businesses to condemn property to build utility lines, including valuable high-pressure gas lines. Almost any utility company can acquire eminent domain power with little government vetting – a system that allows private companies to operate more quickly and less democratically than government.
"It's a huge problem," said state Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, who represents Grayson County. "It's property rights fundamental to our freedom. It'll be on the top of our legislative agenda in '09."
Mr. Estes and others agree private companies should retain eminent domain authority but insist state laws tilt too heavily against landowners.
For pipelines crossing state lines, more stringent federal rules kick in. That approval process takes an average of 15 months and includes environmental studies and a public announcement, according to the Energy Information Administration.
But none of that happens in Texas. The Railroad Commission – the state agency that oversees pipelines – acts only as a safety inspector and records repository.
Gas companies can build lines almost anywhere, though they must follow basic safety rules. There's no review process and no incentive to move lines away from houses or bury them deeper to minimize the impact on future development. Nor are they encouraged to use existing utility easements, leaving instead an uncoordinated web often affecting more landowners.
"To [companies], hooking up wells and getting the commodity to the market is the first and foremost concern," said Pat Nugent, executive director of the Texas Pipeline Association, which represents pipeline companies. "If you have crews out there who run into bureaucratic red tape, they would have a real problem with that."
The result is that landowners – and public officials who represent them – often don't know about a pipeline until a surveyor knocks on their door to stake out a route.
"We need to get some laws in this state so the landowners have some rights again," Mr. Woodroof said.
Vetoed
In the last session, Mr. Estes supported House Bill 2006 to ensure that landowners receive fair-market prices in eminent domain cases. Property rights groups backed the bill. So did the Texas Pipeline Association. The bill passed 125-11 in the House and 29-1 in the Senate. But Gov. Rick Perry vetoed it, saying it would raise the cost of public projects by more than $1 billion.
"That was probably the biggest slap in the face that has ever happened to property owners in the state of Texas," said Joe Maley, organization director for the Texas Farm Bureau, which claims more than 400,000 members.
Mr. Perry did sign a related bill, known as the Landowner's Bill of Rights, which takes effect Friday. It assures "adequate compensation." But there are often two different definitions for it – the condemner's and the landowner's.
In the Woodroofs' case, Energy Transfer valued their 5.6 acres at $104,000. The Woodroofs valued it at $1.4 million, which takes into account estimated long-term damage to their remaining 470 acres. The price is being contested.
Property rights advocates say companies have little incentive to negotiate prices with landowners. Even if landowners win more money for the land taken, they can't recoup court and legal fees.
Landowners also don't like the payment structure. Mineral rights owners receive a stream of royalty checks when companies drill a gas well. But when taking land to transfer that gas, companies write only a one-time check that landowners argue doesn't cover the long-term costs of developing around a pipeline.
"We're paying the price for the transportation of someone else's gas," said Sissy Shankles, who has three pipelines on separate easements on her land near Burleson.
Once a pipeline goes in, gas companies can limit what landowners put above it and up to 25 feet on either side of it. Pipeline companies said they will work with landowners, but some developers said the extra hurdles often raise costs.
"You think you own it, but you don't," said Bob Sanford, whose 440-acre property in Grayson County is being crossed by Energy Transfer.
Mr. Woodroof said he asked Energy Transfer to build the line farther south, away from his home. He also wanted a guarantee the pipes would be deeper than 3 feet to minimize the impact on future development. Both requests were denied, he said.
Energy Transfer "tries to work with landowners to accommodate requests when they can," spokeswoman Vicki Granado said, declining to discuss specifics. "In some cases, they can move lines, and in some cases they can't. As a company, they try really hard."
Mr. Woodroof said the company made no effort to work with him.
"The rules will change when someone hits a gas line and 10 houses burn down," said Michelle Jones, the Woodroofs' attorney. "That'll be when they do something."
Rules for building a gas pipeline in Texas
To build a pipeline in Texas, companies must:
Step 1: Fill out a one-page form, called a T-4, to obtain a permit from the Railroad Commission of Texas. Operators must renew the permit annually.
Step 2: Pick a route for the pipeline and request the affected landowners' permission to survey their properties. If landowners refuse, companies may sue for access. State or local government approval is not required.
Step 3: Make offers to landowners for taking easements up to 50 feet wide. If the two sides can't reach a deal, the company may condemn the property. At that point, a special commissioners court sets the price. Once a price is set, the company can begin construction – even if the landowner appeals. Landowners can contest only the price, not the company's right to their property. Landowners can't recover legal fees – even if courts rule in their favor.
Step 4: File a construction report with the Railroad Commission at least 30 days before work begins.
Step 5: Begin construction. Landowners retain access to the pipeline easements but are restricted in how that land can be used. Developers must obtain permission from pipeline companies to build roads or water lines over the pipelines. No structures can be built on top of a pipeline.
Note: Pipelines carrying toxic, so-called sour gas have additional restrictions.
SOURCE: Dallas Morning News research
Regulation of gas pipelines in Texas
Here's a look at the state's regulation of gas pipelines and the rights of affected landowners:
What's the issue? Energy companies can build pipelines almost anywhere without any government involvement or permission from landowners.
Who regulates gas pipelines? The Railroad Commission of Texas was established in 1891 to regulate the rail industry. But today's Railroad Commission has nothing to do with railroads, as that authority was transferred to the Texas Department of Transportation in 2005. Instead, the commission primarily oversees the energy industry.
What's the Railroad Commission's role? The commission's primary roles are to conduct pipeline safety evaluations and act as a records repository. If companies meet state standards and fill out the proper paperwork, the commission cannot stop a pipeline project or examine the proposed route before construction begins.
What rights do landowners have? Not many. Last year, the Legislature passed the Landowner's Bill of Rights, which becomes official Friday. The document spells out 10 rights, including the right to hire an attorney and the right to "adequate compensation," though the term is undefined. Landowners do not have the right to challenge the pipeline route, but they can go to a special commissioners court to seek more money from the pipeline company. Landowners can appeal that price through the court system but cannot recoup any legal fees.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News
Friday, January 25, 2008
SMOKING GUN -- TxDOT confronted with docs showing they hired lobbyists
By Terri Hall - TURF - Jan. 23, 2008
Houghton admits TxDOT hired lobbyists, defended it, and admitted to doing it personally, too!
Hempstead, TX, January 22, 2008 – TxDOT was confronted by TURF Board Member Hank Gilbert at tonight's Town Hall Meeting in Hempstead about it hiring 4 federal lobbyists (paid $5,000 and $10,000 monthly retainers ) Chad Bradley, Drew Maloney, Garry Mauro, Billy Moore and one state lobbyist with Alliance for I-69, Gary Bushell, to lobby elected officials and solicit them in selling the public on the controversial Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69 privatized toll project.
On March 23, 2007, Bushell met directly with 4 Waller County Commissioners Glenn Beckendorff, Bill Eplen, Terry Harrison, and Milton Whiting. Apparently at the first meeting, Bushell didn't identify himself as a lobbyist as required by law. He failed to declare that he was a lobbyist until the second meeting with commissioners when two TxDOT personnel accompanied Bushell.
It apparently didn’t do TxDOT any good since the Waller County Commissioners have since passed a resolution against the Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69 project coming through Waller County. But that’s not the case in other meetings where elected officials raced to the microphone to sing the praises of the TTC-69 to their constituents like they did in Texarkana, January 15.
As part of TURF’s lawsuit against the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for its ad campaign to advocate toll roads and the Trans Texas Corridor (in violation of Texas Government Code Chapter 556), new evidence uncovered this taxpayer-funded lobbying by TxDOT.
TURF discovered detailed logs showing a concerted campaign to lobby politicians, particularly newly elected officials, which is a BIG no-no for a state agency that must remain apolitical. Bushell personally lobbied more than two-dozen elected officials in the path of TTC-69 prior to the Town Hall meetings.
Houghton admits TxDOT violated the law!
At the packed Town Hall meeting in Hempstead tonight (estimated 800-1,000 people in attendance), Transportation Commissioner Ted Houghton said he also personally met with every county judge in the path of the Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69 as he defended the “necessity” of TxDOT hiring lobbyists to “lobby” elected officials (he used that exact word multiple times).
This action is in DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAW!
Zachry sends observer
Trouble in the private toll paradise?
Another first at tonight’s Town Hall was the presence of a Zachry employee taking meticulous notes on his laptop. Zachry Construction is one of the private consortiums seeking the development rights to the TTC 69 project.
“This is a first,” said Hank Gilbert, a TURF Board member attending the Town Halls. “I’ve never seen a Zachry employee at a single public meeting in my 3 1/2 years fighting this thing.”
This may indicate trouble in Governor’s Perry’s world of private sector control of our public highways. The 80th Legislature passed a private toll moratorium (SB 792) in 2007 and the public-private partnership lobby has been jittery ever since. The public opposition is growing more fierce and more organized.
TURF also discovered in a memo to TxDOT dated November 8, 2007, that Rodman & Co. marketing gurus seem to have drafted quotes on behalf of elected officials in order to place them as positive quotes in press releases about the TTC-69 project.
TxDOT also hired Governor Rick Perry’s political polling outfit, Bacelice & Associates, to conduct a poll that included asking one’s political party affiliation in its questions.
“What does a person’s political party have to do with a supposed ‘public information’ campaign? Nothing, it’s clear this ad campaign is about pushing a political agenda and brainwashing the public with pro-toll talking points like ‘tolls are better than gas taxes to fund roads'. C’mon, this is politics run amok and an agency run amok. Who’s going to rein them in?” criticizes Hall.
“TxDOT has patently and repeatedly denied that they’ve been illegally lobbying elected officials, yet they secretly and knowingly hired registered lobbyists to do the Governor’s dirty work in ramming toll roads and this Trans Texas Corridor down the taxpayers’ throats! It’s an outrage and we intend to put a stop to it since no one else will,” promises Hall.
“The LAW forbids TxDOT from using taxpayer money for a political purpose, only to find they’ve blown millions on PR firms and are currently using OUR MONEY to put up more than 2 dozen TxDOT employees as they galavant all over the state in a series of Town Hall meetings. The Town Halls are for purely political purposes, and they’re more akin to a propaganda-filled dog and pony show than a real dialogue giving the public veto power over this project,” notes Hall.
TxDOT is holding this series of Town Hall Meetings ahead of the official LEGAL public hearings for TTC-69 in order to win over an unsuspecting public and to divert critics AWAY from registering their opposition on the official LEGAL record at the public hearings to follow.
TxDOT’s behavior demonstrates why there are laws prohibiting the government from using its power and OUR money against the taxpayer. The citizens have the deck stacked against them when their own government forcibly takes their money and uses it to clobber them.
What TxDOT calls “outreach” is, in reality, an ad campaign (www.KeepTexasMoving.com) using public relations firms and political strategists to “sell” the public on a privatized, tolled trade corridor from Laredo to Texarkana.
Like TTC-35, TTC-69 plans to convert some existing highways into privately controlled toll roads, making Texas taxpayers pay twice for the same stretch of road as well as to force Texas landowners to give-up their farms and ranches for a massive new stretch of road in order to complete the entire TTC-69 project.
Read the latest in TURF’s lawsuit against TxDOT’s misuse of taxpayer money for an ad campaign advocating tolls and against its lobbying activities here.
Read TURF’s formal complaint against TxDOT’s illegal use of taxpayer money filed with Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle here.
Houghton admits TxDOT hired lobbyists, defended it, and admitted to doing it personally, too!
Hempstead, TX, January 22, 2008 – TxDOT was confronted by TURF Board Member Hank Gilbert at tonight's Town Hall Meeting in Hempstead about it hiring 4 federal lobbyists (paid $5,000 and $10,000 monthly retainers ) Chad Bradley, Drew Maloney, Garry Mauro, Billy Moore and one state lobbyist with Alliance for I-69, Gary Bushell, to lobby elected officials and solicit them in selling the public on the controversial Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69 privatized toll project.
On March 23, 2007, Bushell met directly with 4 Waller County Commissioners Glenn Beckendorff, Bill Eplen, Terry Harrison, and Milton Whiting. Apparently at the first meeting, Bushell didn't identify himself as a lobbyist as required by law. He failed to declare that he was a lobbyist until the second meeting with commissioners when two TxDOT personnel accompanied Bushell.
It apparently didn’t do TxDOT any good since the Waller County Commissioners have since passed a resolution against the Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69 project coming through Waller County. But that’s not the case in other meetings where elected officials raced to the microphone to sing the praises of the TTC-69 to their constituents like they did in Texarkana, January 15.
As part of TURF’s lawsuit against the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for its ad campaign to advocate toll roads and the Trans Texas Corridor (in violation of Texas Government Code Chapter 556), new evidence uncovered this taxpayer-funded lobbying by TxDOT.
TURF discovered detailed logs showing a concerted campaign to lobby politicians, particularly newly elected officials, which is a BIG no-no for a state agency that must remain apolitical. Bushell personally lobbied more than two-dozen elected officials in the path of TTC-69 prior to the Town Hall meetings.
Houghton admits TxDOT violated the law!
At the packed Town Hall meeting in Hempstead tonight (estimated 800-1,000 people in attendance), Transportation Commissioner Ted Houghton said he also personally met with every county judge in the path of the Trans Texas Corridor TTC-69 as he defended the “necessity” of TxDOT hiring lobbyists to “lobby” elected officials (he used that exact word multiple times).
This action is in DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE LAW!
Texas Government Code:
§ 556.005. Employment of Lobbyist
(a) A state agency may not use appropriated money to employ, as a regular full-time or part-time or contract employee, a person who is required by Chapter 305 to register as a lobbyist. Except for an institution of higher education as defined by Section 61.003, Education Code, a state agency may not use any money under its control to employ or contract with an individual who is required by Chapter 305 to register as a lobbyist.
"Where's the Travis County District Attorney? TxDOT has now publicly admitted, on camera, that it has violated the LAW!" says an incredulous Terri Hall, Founder of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (or TURF).
Zachry sends observer
Trouble in the private toll paradise?
Another first at tonight’s Town Hall was the presence of a Zachry employee taking meticulous notes on his laptop. Zachry Construction is one of the private consortiums seeking the development rights to the TTC 69 project.
“This is a first,” said Hank Gilbert, a TURF Board member attending the Town Halls. “I’ve never seen a Zachry employee at a single public meeting in my 3 1/2 years fighting this thing.”
This may indicate trouble in Governor’s Perry’s world of private sector control of our public highways. The 80th Legislature passed a private toll moratorium (SB 792) in 2007 and the public-private partnership lobby has been jittery ever since. The public opposition is growing more fierce and more organized.
TURF also discovered in a memo to TxDOT dated November 8, 2007, that Rodman & Co. marketing gurus seem to have drafted quotes on behalf of elected officials in order to place them as positive quotes in press releases about the TTC-69 project.
TxDOT also hired Governor Rick Perry’s political polling outfit, Bacelice & Associates, to conduct a poll that included asking one’s political party affiliation in its questions.
“What does a person’s political party have to do with a supposed ‘public information’ campaign? Nothing, it’s clear this ad campaign is about pushing a political agenda and brainwashing the public with pro-toll talking points like ‘tolls are better than gas taxes to fund roads'. C’mon, this is politics run amok and an agency run amok. Who’s going to rein them in?” criticizes Hall.
“TxDOT has patently and repeatedly denied that they’ve been illegally lobbying elected officials, yet they secretly and knowingly hired registered lobbyists to do the Governor’s dirty work in ramming toll roads and this Trans Texas Corridor down the taxpayers’ throats! It’s an outrage and we intend to put a stop to it since no one else will,” promises Hall.
“The LAW forbids TxDOT from using taxpayer money for a political purpose, only to find they’ve blown millions on PR firms and are currently using OUR MONEY to put up more than 2 dozen TxDOT employees as they galavant all over the state in a series of Town Hall meetings. The Town Halls are for purely political purposes, and they’re more akin to a propaganda-filled dog and pony show than a real dialogue giving the public veto power over this project,” notes Hall.
TxDOT is holding this series of Town Hall Meetings ahead of the official LEGAL public hearings for TTC-69 in order to win over an unsuspecting public and to divert critics AWAY from registering their opposition on the official LEGAL record at the public hearings to follow.
TxDOT’s behavior demonstrates why there are laws prohibiting the government from using its power and OUR money against the taxpayer. The citizens have the deck stacked against them when their own government forcibly takes their money and uses it to clobber them.
What TxDOT calls “outreach” is, in reality, an ad campaign (www.KeepTexasMoving.com) using public relations firms and political strategists to “sell” the public on a privatized, tolled trade corridor from Laredo to Texarkana.
Like TTC-35, TTC-69 plans to convert some existing highways into privately controlled toll roads, making Texas taxpayers pay twice for the same stretch of road as well as to force Texas landowners to give-up their farms and ranches for a massive new stretch of road in order to complete the entire TTC-69 project.
Read the latest in TURF’s lawsuit against TxDOT’s misuse of taxpayer money for an ad campaign advocating tolls and against its lobbying activities here.
Read TURF’s formal complaint against TxDOT’s illegal use of taxpayer money filed with Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle here.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
TxDOT on the legislative griddle Feb. 5
By Ben Wear - The AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN - Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Read more
Committee Information:
Senate Members:
Sen. John Carona
Sen. Robert Nichols
Sen. Tommy Williams
House Members:
Rep. Aaron Peña
Rep. Larry Phillips
Rep. Wayne Smith
Public Members:
John W. Johnson
Robert W. Poole Jr.
Grady W. Smithey Jr.
FROM THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE LIBRARY - Legislative Reports
PRIVATE PARTICIPATION IN TOLL PROJECTS - LEGISLATIVE STUDY - 80th R.S. (2007)
Committee Members; Rep. Aaron Pena, Rep. Larry Phillips, Rep. Wayne Smith
Committee Charges:
1. The legislative study committee shall select a presiding officer from among its members and conduct public hearings and study the public policy implications of including in a comprehensive development agreement entered into by a toll project entity with a private participant in connection with a toll project a provision that permits the private participant to operate and collect revenue from the toll project. In addition, the committee shall examine the public policy implications of selling an existing and operating toll project to a private entity.
Not later than December 1, 2008, the legislative study committee shall:
(1) prepare a written report summarizing:
(A) any hearings conducted by the committee;
(B) any legislation proposed by the committee;
(C) the committee's recommendations for safeguards and protections of the public's interest when a contract for the sale of a toll project to a private entity is entered into; and
(D) any other findings or recommendations of the
committee; and
(2) deliver a copy of the report to the governor, the
lieutenant governor, and the speaker of the house of
representatives.
Note: Created pursuant to SB 792, 80th Legislature.
NOTE: Martha Estes contributed to this post.
Shine your shoes and haul out a clean shirt, TxDOT. The Legislature wants to see you on Feb. 5. All day.
The Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have called what would be a very rare joint meeting at 9 a.m. Feb. 5. The meeting would be in the Finance Committee’s meeting room in the Capital Extension, E1.036.
The subject: “The Texas Department of Transportation’s 2008-09 appropriations.” Translated, that means, we want to pin you down and find if you really and truly are suddenly out of money. TxDOT shook up the Texas transportation world, and quite a few powerful legislators, over the past two months by suddenly cutting money for project engineering and right of way and announcing it will award no new road construction contracts after Feb. 1. Frankly, a lot of lawmakers think TxDOT is playing politics with its books.
After these two committees are through, probably around noon, then the Legislative Study Committee on Private Participation in Toll Projects (called the CDA committee or 792 committee informally) will meet at 1 p.m. in the same room. That committee, which includes three appointees each by Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick, was created by SB 792 and told to look at the private toll road contracts that stirred up the Legislature last year. This is that committee’s first meeting.
Meanwhile, TxDOT is under review by the Sunset Advisory Committee as well.
Better get a couple of clean shirts. And maybe some underwear as well.
Read more
Committee Information:
Senate Members:
Sen. John Carona
Sen. Robert Nichols
Sen. Tommy Williams
House Members:
Rep. Aaron Peña
Rep. Larry Phillips
Rep. Wayne Smith
Public Members:
John W. Johnson
Robert W. Poole Jr.
Grady W. Smithey Jr.
FROM THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE LIBRARY - Legislative Reports
PRIVATE PARTICIPATION IN TOLL PROJECTS - LEGISLATIVE STUDY - 80th R.S. (2007)
Committee Members; Rep. Aaron Pena, Rep. Larry Phillips, Rep. Wayne Smith
Committee Charges:
1. The legislative study committee shall select a presiding officer from among its members and conduct public hearings and study the public policy implications of including in a comprehensive development agreement entered into by a toll project entity with a private participant in connection with a toll project a provision that permits the private participant to operate and collect revenue from the toll project. In addition, the committee shall examine the public policy implications of selling an existing and operating toll project to a private entity.
Not later than December 1, 2008, the legislative study committee shall:
(1) prepare a written report summarizing:
(A) any hearings conducted by the committee;
(B) any legislation proposed by the committee;
(C) the committee's recommendations for safeguards and protections of the public's interest when a contract for the sale of a toll project to a private entity is entered into; and
(D) any other findings or recommendations of the
committee; and
(2) deliver a copy of the report to the governor, the
lieutenant governor, and the speaker of the house of
representatives.
Note: Created pursuant to SB 792, 80th Legislature.
NOTE: Martha Estes contributed to this post.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Transit authority to spend $51,000 to repair faulty signs
By GORDON DICKSON - Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Jan. 18, 2008
At every train station in Tarrant County, electronic message boards hang from the platform ceilings. The signs are supposed to project helpful messages to Trinity Railway Express riders, such as "The next eastbound TRE will depart in 11 minutes."
But the signs have been dark for most of the past year because of mechanical problems, Fort Worth Transportation Authority finance officer Rob Harmon said.
On Thursday, the T board agreed to spend $51,215 to repair the signs over several months. The work will be performed by Inova Solutions, the only company to submit a bid.
Even without the signs, passengers can still check times the old-fashioned way: by consulting print schedules posted at each station.
The signs look fancy but don't actually track the precise location of trains, Harmon said.
That may change in the next year or two. Dallas Area Rapid Transit intends to install a more sophisticated passenger information system, which would use sensors to precisely monitor trains in Dallas County, Harmon said. Once that system is up and running, the T likely will tap into it on the Tarrant County side, he said.
Also at the meeting
In other action Thursday, the T board:
Hired Freese and Nichols to design the location of a second track at Richland Hills Station. An extra track stretching a half-mile in each direction from the station would allow faster, more frequent train service. The design will cost at least $129,000.
Discussed a potential First Amendment lawsuit in closed session but took no action. Last month, a passenger complained she was escorted off a bus for reading the Bible to her children. T officials said it was the volume of her voice, not the subject matter, that caused the problem.
At every train station in Tarrant County, electronic message boards hang from the platform ceilings. The signs are supposed to project helpful messages to Trinity Railway Express riders, such as "The next eastbound TRE will depart in 11 minutes."
But the signs have been dark for most of the past year because of mechanical problems, Fort Worth Transportation Authority finance officer Rob Harmon said.
On Thursday, the T board agreed to spend $51,215 to repair the signs over several months. The work will be performed by Inova Solutions, the only company to submit a bid.
Even without the signs, passengers can still check times the old-fashioned way: by consulting print schedules posted at each station.
The signs look fancy but don't actually track the precise location of trains, Harmon said.
That may change in the next year or two. Dallas Area Rapid Transit intends to install a more sophisticated passenger information system, which would use sensors to precisely monitor trains in Dallas County, Harmon said. Once that system is up and running, the T likely will tap into it on the Tarrant County side, he said.
Also at the meeting
In other action Thursday, the T board:
Hired Freese and Nichols to design the location of a second track at Richland Hills Station. An extra track stretching a half-mile in each direction from the station would allow faster, more frequent train service. The design will cost at least $129,000.
Discussed a potential First Amendment lawsuit in closed session but took no action. Last month, a passenger complained she was escorted off a bus for reading the Bible to her children. T officials said it was the volume of her voice, not the subject matter, that caused the problem.
ACTION ALERT: Tx House Committee on Transportation Public Hearing on role of MPO and Rural Planning Authorities within COGs
Texas House of Represenatives Meeting Notice - Jan. 18, 2008
TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMITTEE: Transportation
SUBCOMMITTEE: Planning Authorities
TIME & DATE: 10:00 AM, Wednesday, February 06, 2008
PLACE: E2.012
CHAIR: Rep. Fred Hill
The Subcommittee will meet to consider the following:
Charge #5: Examine the role of metropolitan planning authorities in state law, as well as the creation of rural planning authorities to address the planning needs outside of metropolitan planning organizations but within council of government boundaries.
TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMITTEE: Transportation
SUBCOMMITTEE: Planning Authorities
TIME & DATE: 10:00 AM, Wednesday, February 06, 2008
PLACE: E2.012
CHAIR: Rep. Fred Hill
The Subcommittee will meet to consider the following:
Charge #5: Examine the role of metropolitan planning authorities in state law, as well as the creation of rural planning authorities to address the planning needs outside of metropolitan planning organizations but within council of government boundaries.
Hearing on Wendy Davis' Candidacy for Sen. Distict 10 Scheduled Monday, Jan. 23
By Tarrant County Democratic Party - Jan. 18, 2008
Hearing on Wendy Davis' Candidacy for Sen. Dist. 10
Scheduled for Monday, January 23rd, 11am
The Firefighters' appeal to Chairman Art Brender's decision to declare Wendy Davis eligible as a candidate in the Senate District 10 Primary will be heard by the Court of Appeals on Monday, January 23rd, at 11am.
The Hearing will take place on the 9th Floor of the Tarrant County Justice Center.
Hearing on Wendy Davis' Candidacy for Sen. Dist. 10
Scheduled for Monday, January 23rd, 11am
The Firefighters' appeal to Chairman Art Brender's decision to declare Wendy Davis eligible as a candidate in the Senate District 10 Primary will be heard by the Court of Appeals on Monday, January 23rd, at 11am.
The Hearing will take place on the 9th Floor of the Tarrant County Justice Center.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Study to kick-start highway bill lobbying
By Jim Snyder - The Hill - January 15, 2008
Business groups are looking at Tuesday’s release of a transportation study as a start-your-engines moment to what is likely to be one of the most aggressively lobbied highway bills in recent memory.
A panel of public and private officials who reviewed the country’s transportation needs for the past two years wrote the long-awaited report. Congress formed the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission in the last highway bill.
The report will examine all four components of the transportation infrastructure system: freight rail lines, highways and bridges, ports, and mass transit systems.
The current highway bill lasts until 2009, but lobbyists anticipate the debate over surface transportation will begin this year given the rising importance of transportation bottlenecks on operating costs. An anticipated $4 billion shortfall in transportation accounts in 2008 is also likely to drive the transportation debate on Capitol Hill.
One key element of the debate is whether the gas tax should be significantly increased to help pay for new spending.
Under the plan endorsed by a majority of panel members, the federal share of transportation spending would increase from 37 percent to 40 percent, according to one lobbyist.
There is a broad coalition of forces arrayed in support of tax increases, but increasing the gas tax is likely to remain politically difficult.
“A special commission came up with an old, cold, bad idea,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee. “This is a disappointment and probably even a big waste of tax dollars,” Grassley said in a statement anticipating the panel’s report.
Transportation lobbyists said the committee itself was split on the need to raise taxes. The Bush administration opposes a tax hike, and current Transportation Secretary Mary Peters reportedly is one of the panel members to have argued against raising taxes as a way to spend more on infrastructure.
However, groups like NAM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally allergic to tax hikes, in this case have joined contractors, civil engineers and others in support of higher user fees.
“This is a priority for [our members] as the costs for logistics are increasing much faster than they have before,” Palmieri said.
The issue of infrastructure spending “has never been more important to them. It is very high on the agenda,” he said.
He noted one estimate that congestion adds $8 billion a year in prices for consumer goods.
Kavinoky, who is also the executive director of Americans for Transportation Mobility, one of several infrastructure coalitions formed in anticipation of the next highway bill debate, defended the tax.
Even though the bulk of the new money would come from an increased gas tax, long the mainstay in transportation funding, business lobbyists also anticipate the report will recommend the sort of paradigm shift they were looking for.
One lobbyist, for example, expected the report to call for the creation of a permanent commission that would develop a transportation bill through a process that mirrors the Base Closure and Realignment Commission method Congress adopted to handle the politically sensitive work of closing military bases.
Under that scenario, Congress would approve or reject the commission’s transportation report. But lawmakers would not be able to amend the legislation.
The report is also expected to advocate for a performance-based matrix that would tie funding to improvements in safety, congestion and maintenance efforts.
“That is the equivalent of a massive earthquake in transportation policy,” Kavinoky said.
Kavinoky said federal dollars are distributed by program with little regard to how the money will improve performance.
A variety of other funding mechanisms are expected to be proposed by panel members to improve system performance.
Those are likely to include public-private partnerships for toll roads that are controversial in some quarters, and a transit tax to support expansion of public transportation programs.
Read more in THE HILL
Business groups are looking at Tuesday’s release of a transportation study as a start-your-engines moment to what is likely to be one of the most aggressively lobbied highway bills in recent memory.
A panel of public and private officials who reviewed the country’s transportation needs for the past two years wrote the long-awaited report. Congress formed the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission in the last highway bill.
“Every stakeholder in the transportation industry … has been waiting for this report to come out,” said Janet Kavinoky, director of transportation infrastructure at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“Nothing like this has been done before,” said Rosario Palmieri, vice president for infrastructure policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.
The report will examine all four components of the transportation infrastructure system: freight rail lines, highways and bridges, ports, and mass transit systems.
The current highway bill lasts until 2009, but lobbyists anticipate the debate over surface transportation will begin this year given the rising importance of transportation bottlenecks on operating costs. An anticipated $4 billion shortfall in transportation accounts in 2008 is also likely to drive the transportation debate on Capitol Hill.
One key element of the debate is whether the gas tax should be significantly increased to help pay for new spending.
Under the plan endorsed by a majority of panel members, the federal share of transportation spending would increase from 37 percent to 40 percent, according to one lobbyist.
There is a broad coalition of forces arrayed in support of tax increases, but increasing the gas tax is likely to remain politically difficult.
“A special commission came up with an old, cold, bad idea,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee. “This is a disappointment and probably even a big waste of tax dollars,” Grassley said in a statement anticipating the panel’s report.
Transportation lobbyists said the committee itself was split on the need to raise taxes. The Bush administration opposes a tax hike, and current Transportation Secretary Mary Peters reportedly is one of the panel members to have argued against raising taxes as a way to spend more on infrastructure.
However, groups like NAM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally allergic to tax hikes, in this case have joined contractors, civil engineers and others in support of higher user fees.
“This is a priority for [our members] as the costs for logistics are increasing much faster than they have before,” Palmieri said.
The issue of infrastructure spending “has never been more important to them. It is very high on the agenda,” he said.
He noted one estimate that congestion adds $8 billion a year in prices for consumer goods.
Kavinoky, who is also the executive director of Americans for Transportation Mobility, one of several infrastructure coalitions formed in anticipation of the next highway bill debate, defended the tax.
“Right now, a user fee is the simplest and most straight-forward way to collect revenues,” she said.
Even though the bulk of the new money would come from an increased gas tax, long the mainstay in transportation funding, business lobbyists also anticipate the report will recommend the sort of paradigm shift they were looking for.
One lobbyist, for example, expected the report to call for the creation of a permanent commission that would develop a transportation bill through a process that mirrors the Base Closure and Realignment Commission method Congress adopted to handle the politically sensitive work of closing military bases.
Under that scenario, Congress would approve or reject the commission’s transportation report. But lawmakers would not be able to amend the legislation.
The report is also expected to advocate for a performance-based matrix that would tie funding to improvements in safety, congestion and maintenance efforts.
“That is the equivalent of a massive earthquake in transportation policy,” Kavinoky said.
Kavinoky said federal dollars are distributed by program with little regard to how the money will improve performance.
A variety of other funding mechanisms are expected to be proposed by panel members to improve system performance.
Those are likely to include public-private partnerships for toll roads that are controversial in some quarters, and a transit tax to support expansion of public transportation programs.
Read more in THE HILL
ACTION ALERT: NTTA Public Meeting Scheduled for Dallas North Tollway Extension, Phase 4A
By Sherita Coffelt - NTTA - Jan. 15, 2008
(Prosper, TX) - The North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) will conduct an open house public meeting to discuss the design for the extension of the Dallas North Tollway from U.S. 380 north to Farm-to-Market (FM) 428 in Collin County, referred to as the Dallas North Tollway Extension, Phase 4A. The public meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Thursday, Jan. 24, 2008, at Prestonwood Baptist Church, north campus, 1180 Prosper Trail in Prosper, Texas. All interested citizens are invited to attend this public meeting.
“At this meeting, we will provide information regarding the development of the proposed alternatives to interested citizens and stakeholders and to provide a forum for which the public may provide input and comments,” said Jeff Dailey, the NTTA’s Assistant Executive Director of Project Delivery. “This project will further open a corridor to the northern side of the metroplex. Not only will the project provide direct access beyond U.S. 380, it will serve as an additional step in creating a system link north.”
Maps, drawings and other information about the project will be on display, showing the corridor alignment and preliminary design information. The study team will be available at each display to assist in orientation and interpretation of the drawings and other materials and to discuss environmental effects of the proposed design.
Attendees will have the opportunity to provide the study team with comments and suggestions by providing verbal comments to be documented by a court reporter or submitting written comments. Such comments will assist project personnel with the design decisions associated with this study.
Any interested citizen may present verbal or written comments either at the public meeting or after the meeting to the NTTA by Feb. 7, 2008, in care of Ms. Leigh Hornsby, HNTB Corporation, 5910 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, TX 75093. Comments may also be sent electronically to mlhornsby@hntb.com.
(Prosper, TX) - The North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) will conduct an open house public meeting to discuss the design for the extension of the Dallas North Tollway from U.S. 380 north to Farm-to-Market (FM) 428 in Collin County, referred to as the Dallas North Tollway Extension, Phase 4A. The public meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Thursday, Jan. 24, 2008, at Prestonwood Baptist Church, north campus, 1180 Prosper Trail in Prosper, Texas. All interested citizens are invited to attend this public meeting.
“At this meeting, we will provide information regarding the development of the proposed alternatives to interested citizens and stakeholders and to provide a forum for which the public may provide input and comments,” said Jeff Dailey, the NTTA’s Assistant Executive Director of Project Delivery. “This project will further open a corridor to the northern side of the metroplex. Not only will the project provide direct access beyond U.S. 380, it will serve as an additional step in creating a system link north.”
Maps, drawings and other information about the project will be on display, showing the corridor alignment and preliminary design information. The study team will be available at each display to assist in orientation and interpretation of the drawings and other materials and to discuss environmental effects of the proposed design.
Attendees will have the opportunity to provide the study team with comments and suggestions by providing verbal comments to be documented by a court reporter or submitting written comments. Such comments will assist project personnel with the design decisions associated with this study.
Any interested citizen may present verbal or written comments either at the public meeting or after the meeting to the NTTA by Feb. 7, 2008, in care of Ms. Leigh Hornsby, HNTB Corporation, 5910 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, TX 75093. Comments may also be sent electronically to mlhornsby@hntb.com.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Bonehead educators fuel election chaos
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Jan. 14, 2008
The Texas Education Agency receives my "Bonehead of the Year Award" for scheduling TAKS testing on primary election day without sending clarification to school districts that state law requires that public buildings (including schools) must accommodate elections on election day.
Across Texas County Election officials and County Chairs of both political parties are scrambling to sign election contracts while many school districts are refusing to accommodate the elections. Some counties are suing school districts to get access to the buildings. Some school districts are accommodating the elections. Others are standing firm refusing to accommodate the elections. Citizens are confused. Most news coverage is sketchy and incomplete or inaccurate.
Here is what I've learned about how educators who are charged with teaching our school children civics and government blew this one out of the water!
Some school districts wanted to delay the start of the school year for the Spring Semester. The State Board of Education is responsible for administering a "student assessment instrument and is charged in Texas Education Code Chapter 39.027 (a)(2) with adopting a schedule for administrating the end-of-course assessment.
State law was change so that the Texas public schools' spring semester could start later than last year. A change was made in the Texas Education Code 39.023(c-3) so that this year the first end-of-course assessment tests must be administered at least 2 weeks later than that they were last year.
The language in the Education Code was changed to read:
Texas Education Code 39.023.c-3 does not require that the TEA set the TAKS test on March 4th (election day). It merely requires that the date must be at least 2 weeks later than last year. I have phoned TEA Legal inquiring if they reviewed Texas Election Code 43.031 requiring that public buildings accommodate elections and sent information to the school districts clarifying that TAKS testing cannot hinder the accommodation of elections on election day when they scheduled TAKS testing March 4, 2008? I have not received a response yet from them.
Texas law does not require TAKS testing on March 4th (election day). TEA chose to schedule it on March 4th (one of many dates after the time stipulated by state law that the first end-of-course assessment test must be scheduled.
I think this is a very boneheaded decision by State Bureaucrats. Those who scheduled TAKS testing on election day and those who approved that schedule have thrown the election process into unnecessary chaos. Election administrators, parties, candidates are struggling to determine where the elections will be held. Some counties are suing the school districts to require them to accommodate the elections according to Texas Election Code 43.031. Others moved the elections to other sites, often at an inconvenience to the voters. (When election sites change, a percentage of voters fail to learn the new sites in time to vote - depressing electoral turnout.) Some communities simply do not have suitable alternate sites available in the precincts to hold the elections.
I sent this message to the Texas Education Agency:
If you want to write them the email link to their website form is: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/tea/contact.html
I recommend that you also phone them. It is easier to ignore contact forms. When their switchboard also lights up the e-mail responses have greater impact.
The Texas Education Agency is located in the William Travis Building
1701 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas, 78701
Those who oversee (and vote to fund) the TEA include:
Gov. Rick Perry - Tara Balleau (512) 799-9240 is the governor's point person on education.
In the Lt. Governor's office Andre Sheridan (512) 463-0108 is the Education Point Person.
Members of the Texas Senate Committee on Education include:
Chair of the Senate Education Committee: Senator Florence Shapiro (512) 463-0108 (972) 403-3404 - email form
Senator Royce West - (512) 463-0123 or (214) 467-0123
Senator West's education point person is Lajuana Barton lajuana_d.barton@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Kyle Janek - (512) 463-0117 (800) 445-2635
Senator Janek's point person on education is Casey Haney email: casey.haney@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Judith Zaffirini (512) 463-0121 (956) 722-2293
Her education point person is Warren von Eschenbach email: warren.voneschenbach@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Steve Ogden (512) 463-0105 His education point person is Patty Guerra
email: patty.guerra@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Leticia Van de Putte (512) 463-0126 (210) 733-6604
Her point person on education is Ida Garcia email: ida.garcis@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Tommy Williams (281) 364-9426 His point person on education is his chief of staff Janet Stieben email: janet.stieben@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Dan Patrick (713) 464-0282
I suspect that there may be attempts at TEA (if there is enough outcry)to blame some low level staffer. However, this date was set months ago. It went all the way up the supply chain and officials all the way up signed off on it. The responsiblity for ensuring that directives from the TEA complies with State Law (including State Election Code) rests with the top. The legal team should have reviewed this, conferred with the Attorney General and SOS and issued a directive to all school districts clarifying that if TAKS testing occurs on an election day, the school districts still have to accommodate the elections. The buck rests at the top. They are responsible for triggering law suits between county election officials and school districts throughout Texas, impacting every voter in Texas and sending a very bad message to our school children that elections really aren't that high a priority with this state's "Educators."
I think it is time to EDUCATE the educators.
REFERENCE: Texas Election Code 43.031
Education Code 39.023(c-3)
The Texas Education Agency receives my "Bonehead of the Year Award" for scheduling TAKS testing on primary election day without sending clarification to school districts that state law requires that public buildings (including schools) must accommodate elections on election day.
Across Texas County Election officials and County Chairs of both political parties are scrambling to sign election contracts while many school districts are refusing to accommodate the elections. Some counties are suing school districts to get access to the buildings. Some school districts are accommodating the elections. Others are standing firm refusing to accommodate the elections. Citizens are confused. Most news coverage is sketchy and incomplete or inaccurate.
Here is what I've learned about how educators who are charged with teaching our school children civics and government blew this one out of the water!
Some school districts wanted to delay the start of the school year for the Spring Semester. The State Board of Education is responsible for administering a "student assessment instrument and is charged in Texas Education Code Chapter 39.027 (a)(2) with adopting a schedule for administrating the end-of-course assessment.
State law was change so that the Texas public schools' spring semester could start later than last year. A change was made in the Texas Education Code 39.023(c-3) so that this year the first end-of-course assessment tests must be administered at least 2 weeks later than that they were last year.
The language in the Education Code was changed to read:
(c-3)In adopting a schedule for the administration of assessment instruments under this section, the State Board of Education shall require:
(1)assessment instruments administered under Subsection (a) to be administered on a schedule so that the first assessment instrument is administered at least two weeks later than the date on which the first assessment instrument was administered
under Subsection (a) during the 2006-2007 school year;
Texas Education Code 39.023.c-3 does not require that the TEA set the TAKS test on March 4th (election day). It merely requires that the date must be at least 2 weeks later than last year. I have phoned TEA Legal inquiring if they reviewed Texas Election Code 43.031 requiring that public buildings accommodate elections and sent information to the school districts clarifying that TAKS testing cannot hinder the accommodation of elections on election day when they scheduled TAKS testing March 4, 2008? I have not received a response yet from them.
Texas law does not require TAKS testing on March 4th (election day). TEA chose to schedule it on March 4th (one of many dates after the time stipulated by state law that the first end-of-course assessment test must be scheduled.
I think this is a very boneheaded decision by State Bureaucrats. Those who scheduled TAKS testing on election day and those who approved that schedule have thrown the election process into unnecessary chaos. Election administrators, parties, candidates are struggling to determine where the elections will be held. Some counties are suing the school districts to require them to accommodate the elections according to Texas Election Code 43.031. Others moved the elections to other sites, often at an inconvenience to the voters. (When election sites change, a percentage of voters fail to learn the new sites in time to vote - depressing electoral turnout.) Some communities simply do not have suitable alternate sites available in the precincts to hold the elections.
I sent this message to the Texas Education Agency:
You have flunked the test in citizenship and applied civics! Entrusted by the citizens of this state to teach our children about CIVICS, GOVERNMENT, PARTICIPATION in the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, you either failed to check or chose to ignore that March 4, 2008 is a primary election day. State law requires that public buildings be made available for elections yet you chose to schedule (or approve scheduling) TAKS testing on election day. Your irresponsible, short-sighted, ignorant actions diminishes the ability of election officials and candidates to clearly communicate where the polling places will be in time for ALL CITIZENS to participate. If you allow school districts to refuse to allow the elections to be scheduled in school buildings, you are violating the law and betraying the trust of the citizens. Testing is important. Education is important. Showing our children by EXAMPLE is also important. The message you have sent is loud and clear: Elections don't really matter that much to the Texas Board of Education. Elections are an inconvenience that do not merit careful examination of dates on the calendar which ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL, POLITICAL APPOINTEE, CIVICS TEACHER, REGISTERED VOTER reserves for participating in elections.
The boneheads in your agency who scheduled TAKS testing on Election Day should be informed that it was a MISTAKE. Correct your mistake. Send a strong message to teachers, educators, pupils and your fellow citizens that your agency values our Democratic process enough to relinquish accommodate the elections on school premises March 4th. Make it a policy that all election days will be scheduled on your calendar before you begin filling in dates which are not SET BY LAW.
If you want to write them the email link to their website form is: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/tea/contact.html
I recommend that you also phone them. It is easier to ignore contact forms. When their switchboard also lights up the e-mail responses have greater impact.
The Texas Education Agency is located in the William Travis Building
1701 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas, 78701
Those who oversee (and vote to fund) the TEA include:
Gov. Rick Perry - Tara Balleau (512) 799-9240 is the governor's point person on education.
In the Lt. Governor's office Andre Sheridan (512) 463-0108 is the Education Point Person.
Members of the Texas Senate Committee on Education include:
Chair of the Senate Education Committee: Senator Florence Shapiro (512) 463-0108 (972) 403-3404 - email form
Senator Royce West - (512) 463-0123 or (214) 467-0123
Senator West's education point person is Lajuana Barton lajuana_d.barton@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Kyle Janek - (512) 463-0117 (800) 445-2635
Senator Janek's point person on education is Casey Haney email: casey.haney@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Judith Zaffirini (512) 463-0121 (956) 722-2293
Her education point person is Warren von Eschenbach email: warren.voneschenbach@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Steve Ogden (512) 463-0105 His education point person is Patty Guerra
email: patty.guerra@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Leticia Van de Putte (512) 463-0126 (210) 733-6604
Her point person on education is Ida Garcia email: ida.garcis@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Tommy Williams (281) 364-9426 His point person on education is his chief of staff Janet Stieben email: janet.stieben@senate.state.tx.us
Senator Dan Patrick (713) 464-0282
I suspect that there may be attempts at TEA (if there is enough outcry)to blame some low level staffer. However, this date was set months ago. It went all the way up the supply chain and officials all the way up signed off on it. The responsiblity for ensuring that directives from the TEA complies with State Law (including State Election Code) rests with the top. The legal team should have reviewed this, conferred with the Attorney General and SOS and issued a directive to all school districts clarifying that if TAKS testing occurs on an election day, the school districts still have to accommodate the elections. The buck rests at the top. They are responsible for triggering law suits between county election officials and school districts throughout Texas, impacting every voter in Texas and sending a very bad message to our school children that elections really aren't that high a priority with this state's "Educators."
I think it is time to EDUCATE the educators.
REFERENCE: Texas Election Code 43.031
Education Code 39.023(c-3)
Thursday, January 10, 2008
TxDOT Critics Named to Sunset Review Commission-
By Martha Estes - Jan. 9, 2007
FYI: about the Commission
The Commission includes twelve members. The lieutenant governor and the speaker each appoint one public member and five members from their respective chambers. They also appoint alternating chairs and vice chairs for two-year terms. Legislative members serve four-year terms and public members serve two-year terms.
The Sunset process works by setting a date on which an agency will be abolished unless legislation is passed to continue its functions. This creates an opportunity for the Sunset Commission and the Legislature to study each agency closely and make fundamental changes to its mission or operations if necessary. This includes holding public hearings and issuing a final report of findings with recommendations as to whether the reviewed state agency's mandate will be renewed or expired.
Agencies are typically reviewed every twelve years and up to 30 agencies can go through the Sunset process each legislative session. Some of the agencies up for review this term are the Texas Department of Agriculture, the Texas Department of Insurance, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Office of State-Federal Relations, the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Youth Commission.
Also FYI: about the Members
On October 9, 2007 Speaker Tom Craddick (Midland) announced the appointments of #1 Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) and #2 Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock) and the reappointment of #3 Ike Sugg of San Angelo, a public member of the Commission. Isett will serve as chair of the Commission.
#4 Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (Brenham), #5 Rep. Ruth McClendon Jones (San Antonio), and #6 Rep. Dan Flynn (Van) are members serving the last two years of their four-year terms (2009). Before Rep. Kolkhorst's prominent role in the opposition to the TTC footprint in the 2007 Legislative Session she was the expected Chair for the Sunset Commission.
Note: We need to keep in mind that Sen. Hegar carried the battle in the Senate for the Eminent Domain/Private Property Rights bill # 2006 to protect property owners in Condemnation. It had great support in both chambers and was vetoed by Perry.
Read more at Working for Accountable Government
TxDOT critics appointed to key state commission
By Will Lutz - The Dallas Blog - Tue, Jan 8, 2008
Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) and Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock)Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) and Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock by Will Lutz http://www.dallasblog.com/200801081001536/dallas-blog/txdot-critics-appointed-to-key-state-commission.html
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst today announced his appointments to the Sunset Advisory Commission, and his appointments could spell trouble for the current brass at the Texas Department of Transportation.
Dewhurst appointed the following people: #1 Sen. Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), #2 Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D-McAllen), and #3 Michael Stevens as a public appointee. Dewhurst designated Hegar as the vice chairman of the commission -- the lead Senator on the Sunset Advisory Commission. The appointments are important because the Sunset Advisory Commission is scheduled to review the often controversial Texas Department of Transportation in 2009.
Hegar made stopping the corridor one of the key themes of his successful Senate race in 2006.
Stevens is known for his work on the Governor's Business Council and for chairing the council's Transportation Task Force. The Task Force released a report critical of Department of Transportation's estimated costs of building roads in metropolitan areas.
The Sunset Advisory Commission was originally created to determine if state agencies needed abolition or consolidation. But its mandate has since been expanded to examine how to improve the structure of state agencies. The commission's recommendations become drafted in bill form and then those bills are considered by the Legislature in the next legislative session.
Hegar, Stevens, and Hinojosa join #4 Sens. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville), #5 Kim Brimer (R-Arlington), and #6 Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls) who are serving the last two years of their four-year terms. Hegar and Hinojosa were appointed to four-year terms, and Stevens was appointed to a two-year term. They join six appointees of the House speaker on the commission."I truly appreciate the willingness of all three of these individuals to serve on this important commission," Dewhurst said. "I know each of them will provide knowledgeable and thought-provoking contributions as the Sunset Advisory Commission undertakes the review of some of our most important state agencies."
Read more in the Dallas Blog
FYI: about the Commission
The Commission includes twelve members. The lieutenant governor and the speaker each appoint one public member and five members from their respective chambers. They also appoint alternating chairs and vice chairs for two-year terms. Legislative members serve four-year terms and public members serve two-year terms.
The Sunset process works by setting a date on which an agency will be abolished unless legislation is passed to continue its functions. This creates an opportunity for the Sunset Commission and the Legislature to study each agency closely and make fundamental changes to its mission or operations if necessary. This includes holding public hearings and issuing a final report of findings with recommendations as to whether the reviewed state agency's mandate will be renewed or expired.
Agencies are typically reviewed every twelve years and up to 30 agencies can go through the Sunset process each legislative session. Some of the agencies up for review this term are the Texas Department of Agriculture, the Texas Department of Insurance, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Office of State-Federal Relations, the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Youth Commission.
Also FYI: about the Members
On October 9, 2007 Speaker Tom Craddick (Midland) announced the appointments of #1 Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) and #2 Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock) and the reappointment of #3 Ike Sugg of San Angelo, a public member of the Commission. Isett will serve as chair of the Commission.
#4 Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (Brenham), #5 Rep. Ruth McClendon Jones (San Antonio), and #6 Rep. Dan Flynn (Van) are members serving the last two years of their four-year terms (2009). Before Rep. Kolkhorst's prominent role in the opposition to the TTC footprint in the 2007 Legislative Session she was the expected Chair for the Sunset Commission.
Note: We need to keep in mind that Sen. Hegar carried the battle in the Senate for the Eminent Domain/Private Property Rights bill # 2006 to protect property owners in Condemnation. It had great support in both chambers and was vetoed by Perry.
Read more at Working for Accountable Government
TxDOT critics appointed to key state commission
By Will Lutz - The Dallas Blog - Tue, Jan 8, 2008
Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) and Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock)Rep. Linda Harper-Brown (Irving) and Rep. Carl Isett (Lubbock by Will Lutz http://www.dallasblog.com/200801081001536/dallas-blog/txdot-critics-appointed-to-key-state-commission.html
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst today announced his appointments to the Sunset Advisory Commission, and his appointments could spell trouble for the current brass at the Texas Department of Transportation.
Dewhurst appointed the following people: #1 Sen. Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), #2 Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D-McAllen), and #3 Michael Stevens as a public appointee. Dewhurst designated Hegar as the vice chairman of the commission -- the lead Senator on the Sunset Advisory Commission. The appointments are important because the Sunset Advisory Commission is scheduled to review the often controversial Texas Department of Transportation in 2009.
Hegar made stopping the corridor one of the key themes of his successful Senate race in 2006.
Stevens is known for his work on the Governor's Business Council and for chairing the council's Transportation Task Force. The Task Force released a report critical of Department of Transportation's estimated costs of building roads in metropolitan areas.
The Sunset Advisory Commission was originally created to determine if state agencies needed abolition or consolidation. But its mandate has since been expanded to examine how to improve the structure of state agencies. The commission's recommendations become drafted in bill form and then those bills are considered by the Legislature in the next legislative session.
Hegar, Stevens, and Hinojosa join #4 Sens. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville), #5 Kim Brimer (R-Arlington), and #6 Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls) who are serving the last two years of their four-year terms. Hegar and Hinojosa were appointed to four-year terms, and Stevens was appointed to a two-year term. They join six appointees of the House speaker on the commission."I truly appreciate the willingness of all three of these individuals to serve on this important commission," Dewhurst said. "I know each of them will provide knowledgeable and thought-provoking contributions as the Sunset Advisory Commission undertakes the review of some of our most important state agencies."
Read more in the Dallas Blog
Ashcroft Deal Brings Scrutiny in Justice Dept.
By PHILIP SHENON - The New York Times - January 10, 2008
WASHINGTON — When the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey needed to find an outside lawyer to monitor a large corporation willing to settle criminal charges out of court last fall, he turned to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, his onetime boss. With no public notice and no bidding, the company awarded Mr. Ashcroft an 18-month contract worth $28 million to $52 million.
That contract, which Justice Department officials in Washington learned about only several weeks ago, has prompted an internal inquiry into the department’s procedures for selecting outside monitors to police settlements with large companies.
The contract between Mr. Ashcroft’s consulting firm, the Ashcroft Group, and Zimmer Holdings, a medical supply company in Indiana, has also drawn the attention of Congressional investigators.
The New Jersey prosecutor, United States Attorney Christopher J. Christie, directed similar monitoring contracts last year to two other former Justice Department colleagues from the Bush administration, as well as to a former Republican state attorney general in New Jersey.
Officials said that while there had been no accusations of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Christie or Mr. Ashcroft, aides to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey were concerned about the appearance of favoritism.
Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge who was sworn in as attorney general in November, has vowed to remove political considerations from decision-making at the department in the wake of a series of scandals under his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales.
Mr. Ashcroft was awarded the contract last fall at the direction of Mr. Christie as part of his office’s settlement of criminal accusations against Zimmer Holdings and four smaller firms accused of paying kickbacks to doctors.
A spokesman for Mr. Ashcroft said that the Ashcroft Group had not lobbied for the contract but was pleased by the referral.
The disclosure of the monitoring agreement, in which Mr. Ashcroft’s fees are paid directly by Zimmer, prompted Democratic lawmakers from New Jersey to question if the contract was new evidence of political favoritism in the Bush administration’s long-embattled Justice Department.
Justice Department officials said the internal inquiry by the Criminal Division began several weeks ago with no public announcement.
Department officials said the review was expected to result this year in formal guidelines to prevent the appearance of conflicts in the choice of monitors to oversee out-of-court settlements reached between federal prosecutors and companies accused of wrongdoing.
In the Bush administration, federal prosecutors have increasingly relied on out-of-court settlements with large corporations in criminal investigations that in the past might have resulted in indictments and trials. The settlements often call for outside lawyers to be retained by the companies to monitor the agreements. The contracts call for the lawyers to monitor the company’s compliance with the settlements through financial audits and other types of internal investigations.
A new study by two Texas lawyers, Lawrence D. Finder and Ryan D. McConnell, found that the number of so-called deferred-prosecution or nonprosecution agreements between the department and large companies grew to 35 last year from 5 in 2003.
Often, the names of corporate monitors are not made public. The internal inquiry started after Zimmer Holdings revealed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission in late October that it had hired Mr. Ashcroft’s consulting firm, based in Washington, to monitor its settlement of criminal charges based on accusations of kickbacks to doctors involving the company’s knee and hip implants.
The firm said Mr. Christie had directed it to hire Mr. Ashcroft. Mr. Christie has acknowledged that he chose Mr. Ashcroft for the assignment. The disclosures in Zimmer’s filings about Mr. Ashcroft were first reported several weeks ago by The Star-Ledger of Newark and other New Jersey news organizations.
Mr. Christie directed similar contracts in settlements with other medical-supply companies to two other former Justice Department colleagues — David N. Kelley, the former United States attorney in Manhattan, and Debra Wong Yang, his counterpart in Los Angeles — and to David Samson, the former Republican attorney general in New Jersey.
In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Mr. Christie said he chose Mr. Ashcroft and the others for the monitoring assignments because they had impeccable legal credentials and he knew and trusted them.
Mr. Christie has disputed accusations raised by Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey that it was a conflict of interest for him to direct large, no-bid contracts to former colleagues and friends, but he has referred those questions to the Justice Department in Washington.
Department officials said they had no formal comment but noted that the monitoring agreements were not given only to Republicans and that Mr. Christie’s recommendations of outside monitors in other large corporate investigations had been praised.
Although he was a prosecutor in the Bush administration, Mr. Kelley has registered as a Democrat in the past. Mr. Kelley, who has done legal work for The New York Times, did not respond to e-mail messages on Wednesday. Mr. Samson and Ms. Yang did not return phone calls.
The dollar value of the contracts obtained by Mr. Kelley, Ms. Yang and Mr. Samson is unclear, since the medical-supply companies they are monitoring have not revealed those details, suggesting that they are smaller than Mr. Ashcroft’s.
Under the settlements with the Justice Department, the companies negotiate the fees with the monitors themselves, a situation legal scholars say has the potential for abuse because companies might be overly generous to encourage leniency.
Department officials said that there were few internal guidelines for hiring independent monitors and that Mr. Christie was not required to seek approval from the Justice Department to name Mr. Ashcroft and the others and had not done so.
A spokesman for Mr. Ashcroft’s firm, Mark Corallo, said that Mr. Ashcroft was an obvious choice as a monitor.
“I know John Ashcroft, I know his capabilities,” Mr. Corallo said. “No matter what people think of his politics, he ran an unbelievably efficient operation at Justice as a manager. He understands the law. He understands how to manage an enormous organization.”
He said that Mr. Ashcroft knew nothing about the assignment until the possibility was raised by Mr. Christie, who was confirmed as United States attorney in 2002, shortly before Mr. Ashcroft was sworn in as attorney general. Mr. Christie had been a lawyer in private practice and a Republican fund-raiser in New Jersey.
Mr. Corallo said that Mr. Ashcroft’s firm had hired more than 30 employees and outside advisers, including accountants and lawyers, to oversee the monitoring contract and that Mr. Ashcroft had traveled to Indiana several times for the assignment.
In its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Zimmer said it had agreed to pay the Ashcroft firm a monthly fee of $750,000, and to reimburse it for expenses that were expected to total $150,000 to $250,000 a month.
Read more in The New York Times
WASHINGTON — When the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey needed to find an outside lawyer to monitor a large corporation willing to settle criminal charges out of court last fall, he turned to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, his onetime boss. With no public notice and no bidding, the company awarded Mr. Ashcroft an 18-month contract worth $28 million to $52 million.
That contract, which Justice Department officials in Washington learned about only several weeks ago, has prompted an internal inquiry into the department’s procedures for selecting outside monitors to police settlements with large companies.
The contract between Mr. Ashcroft’s consulting firm, the Ashcroft Group, and Zimmer Holdings, a medical supply company in Indiana, has also drawn the attention of Congressional investigators.
The New Jersey prosecutor, United States Attorney Christopher J. Christie, directed similar monitoring contracts last year to two other former Justice Department colleagues from the Bush administration, as well as to a former Republican state attorney general in New Jersey.
Officials said that while there had been no accusations of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Christie or Mr. Ashcroft, aides to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey were concerned about the appearance of favoritism.
Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge who was sworn in as attorney general in November, has vowed to remove political considerations from decision-making at the department in the wake of a series of scandals under his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales.
Mr. Ashcroft was awarded the contract last fall at the direction of Mr. Christie as part of his office’s settlement of criminal accusations against Zimmer Holdings and four smaller firms accused of paying kickbacks to doctors.
A spokesman for Mr. Ashcroft said that the Ashcroft Group had not lobbied for the contract but was pleased by the referral.
The disclosure of the monitoring agreement, in which Mr. Ashcroft’s fees are paid directly by Zimmer, prompted Democratic lawmakers from New Jersey to question if the contract was new evidence of political favoritism in the Bush administration’s long-embattled Justice Department.
Justice Department officials said the internal inquiry by the Criminal Division began several weeks ago with no public announcement.
Department officials said the review was expected to result this year in formal guidelines to prevent the appearance of conflicts in the choice of monitors to oversee out-of-court settlements reached between federal prosecutors and companies accused of wrongdoing.
In the Bush administration, federal prosecutors have increasingly relied on out-of-court settlements with large corporations in criminal investigations that in the past might have resulted in indictments and trials. The settlements often call for outside lawyers to be retained by the companies to monitor the agreements. The contracts call for the lawyers to monitor the company’s compliance with the settlements through financial audits and other types of internal investigations.
A new study by two Texas lawyers, Lawrence D. Finder and Ryan D. McConnell, found that the number of so-called deferred-prosecution or nonprosecution agreements between the department and large companies grew to 35 last year from 5 in 2003.
Often, the names of corporate monitors are not made public. The internal inquiry started after Zimmer Holdings revealed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission in late October that it had hired Mr. Ashcroft’s consulting firm, based in Washington, to monitor its settlement of criminal charges based on accusations of kickbacks to doctors involving the company’s knee and hip implants.
The firm said Mr. Christie had directed it to hire Mr. Ashcroft. Mr. Christie has acknowledged that he chose Mr. Ashcroft for the assignment. The disclosures in Zimmer’s filings about Mr. Ashcroft were first reported several weeks ago by The Star-Ledger of Newark and other New Jersey news organizations.
Mr. Christie directed similar contracts in settlements with other medical-supply companies to two other former Justice Department colleagues — David N. Kelley, the former United States attorney in Manhattan, and Debra Wong Yang, his counterpart in Los Angeles — and to David Samson, the former Republican attorney general in New Jersey.
In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Mr. Christie said he chose Mr. Ashcroft and the others for the monitoring assignments because they had impeccable legal credentials and he knew and trusted them.
“It’s really important that the working relationship between this office and the monitors is very, very close,” he said. “I can’t tell you how much work we do with these monitors.” He said he had selected Mr. Ashcroft to work with Zimmer, the largest of five companies in the criminal investigation, because “I knew he was somebody who understands these issues and would be taken seriously by the company as an authority figure.”
Mr. Christie has disputed accusations raised by Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey that it was a conflict of interest for him to direct large, no-bid contracts to former colleagues and friends, but he has referred those questions to the Justice Department in Washington.
Department officials said they had no formal comment but noted that the monitoring agreements were not given only to Republicans and that Mr. Christie’s recommendations of outside monitors in other large corporate investigations had been praised.
Although he was a prosecutor in the Bush administration, Mr. Kelley has registered as a Democrat in the past. Mr. Kelley, who has done legal work for The New York Times, did not respond to e-mail messages on Wednesday. Mr. Samson and Ms. Yang did not return phone calls.
The dollar value of the contracts obtained by Mr. Kelley, Ms. Yang and Mr. Samson is unclear, since the medical-supply companies they are monitoring have not revealed those details, suggesting that they are smaller than Mr. Ashcroft’s.
Under the settlements with the Justice Department, the companies negotiate the fees with the monitors themselves, a situation legal scholars say has the potential for abuse because companies might be overly generous to encourage leniency.
Department officials said that there were few internal guidelines for hiring independent monitors and that Mr. Christie was not required to seek approval from the Justice Department to name Mr. Ashcroft and the others and had not done so.
A spokesman for Mr. Ashcroft’s firm, Mark Corallo, said that Mr. Ashcroft was an obvious choice as a monitor.
“I know John Ashcroft, I know his capabilities,” Mr. Corallo said. “No matter what people think of his politics, he ran an unbelievably efficient operation at Justice as a manager. He understands the law. He understands how to manage an enormous organization.”
He said that Mr. Ashcroft knew nothing about the assignment until the possibility was raised by Mr. Christie, who was confirmed as United States attorney in 2002, shortly before Mr. Ashcroft was sworn in as attorney general. Mr. Christie had been a lawyer in private practice and a Republican fund-raiser in New Jersey.
Mr. Corallo said that Mr. Ashcroft’s firm had hired more than 30 employees and outside advisers, including accountants and lawyers, to oversee the monitoring contract and that Mr. Ashcroft had traveled to Indiana several times for the assignment.
“It’s taken a large personal commitment from him,” Mr. Corallo said, adding, “In coming months, people will realize that Chris Christie did exactly the right thing in choosing these folks to be monitors.”
In its filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Zimmer said it had agreed to pay the Ashcroft firm a monthly fee of $750,000, and to reimburse it for expenses that were expected to total $150,000 to $250,000 a month.
Read more in The New York Times
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Companies compete for I-69 construction
Nueces County Record - Jan. 3, 2008
Companies with Texas, U.S. and international experience are competing to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor-69 - one of the state's priority transportation projects.
Two private sector groups submitted proposals and qualifications to compete for the development of TTC-69, a multi-use transportation system stretching from Northeast Texas to Mexico.
One proposal was submitted by Bluebonnet Infrastructure Investors, led by Cintra. Team members include Citigroup, Earth Tech, Blanton & Associates, Maunsell, Othon and W.W. Webber.
A proposal was also submitted by Texas-based Zachry American Infrastructure and ACS Infrastructure Development Inc. Team members include Steer Davies Gleave, UBS Securities, Dannenbaum Engineering, ACI Consulting, Sociedad Ibercia de Construcciones Electricas, Dragados, and William Brothers Construction.
These proposals include statements detailing the groups experience in developing and financing transportation projects similar to TTC-69. Also included are conceptual proposals describing how the team would finance, design, construct, operate and maintain TTC-69.
The next step is for TxDOT to complete an initial review of the proposals, which could be completed next month. Teams with experience, qualifications and innovative engineering will be placed on a short list of potential strategic partners for TTC-69.
Once this is completed, approval by the Texas Transportation Commission is needed to continue with the competitive selection process. If approved, TxDOT will request detailed proposals from the short list of potential strategic partners. A selection of a strategic partner could be made by the commission by late 2007.
With no funding set aside for construction, a public-private partnership would allow development of the entire 600-mile multi-billion dollar project from Northeast Texas to Mexico to be accelerated. Even with private sector resources to fund the project, state transportation officials stress TTC-69 will remain a state-owned project.
On a parallel yet independent track, work continues on the initial environmental study that would narrow the current study area to approximately four miles wide. Subsequent studies will be needed to determine a final route for the project.
Interstate 69 is being developed under the Trans-Texas Corridor master plan. If environmentally approved, the project would be developed as needed and as private sector resources are available.
Companies with Texas, U.S. and international experience are competing to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor-69 - one of the state's priority transportation projects.
Two private sector groups submitted proposals and qualifications to compete for the development of TTC-69, a multi-use transportation system stretching from Northeast Texas to Mexico.
"Inviting the private sector to invest in our transportation system is one of our strategies to meet the growing transportation needs of Texas," said Michael W. Behrens, TxDOT executive director. "We are focused on these five goals: reducing congestion, enhancing safety, expanding economic opportunity, improving air quality, and increasing the value of transportation assets."
One proposal was submitted by Bluebonnet Infrastructure Investors, led by Cintra. Team members include Citigroup, Earth Tech, Blanton & Associates, Maunsell, Othon and W.W. Webber.
A proposal was also submitted by Texas-based Zachry American Infrastructure and ACS Infrastructure Development Inc. Team members include Steer Davies Gleave, UBS Securities, Dannenbaum Engineering, ACI Consulting, Sociedad Ibercia de Construcciones Electricas, Dragados, and William Brothers Construction.
These proposals include statements detailing the groups experience in developing and financing transportation projects similar to TTC-69. Also included are conceptual proposals describing how the team would finance, design, construct, operate and maintain TTC-69.
The next step is for TxDOT to complete an initial review of the proposals, which could be completed next month. Teams with experience, qualifications and innovative engineering will be placed on a short list of potential strategic partners for TTC-69.
Once this is completed, approval by the Texas Transportation Commission is needed to continue with the competitive selection process. If approved, TxDOT will request detailed proposals from the short list of potential strategic partners. A selection of a strategic partner could be made by the commission by late 2007.
With no funding set aside for construction, a public-private partnership would allow development of the entire 600-mile multi-billion dollar project from Northeast Texas to Mexico to be accelerated. Even with private sector resources to fund the project, state transportation officials stress TTC-69 will remain a state-owned project.
On a parallel yet independent track, work continues on the initial environmental study that would narrow the current study area to approximately four miles wide. Subsequent studies will be needed to determine a final route for the project.
Interstate 69 is being developed under the Trans-Texas Corridor master plan. If environmentally approved, the project would be developed as needed and as private sector resources are available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
