Peggy Fikac - Express- News Austin bureau AUSTIN — 10/17/2007
When Texas transportation officials talk about bridges these days, they don't necessarily mean steel spans and concrete girders. Instead, they are being taught how to "bridge" from off-message questions to their own talking points in a toll-road campaign.
"You will often be asked questions that don't get to the points you wish to make or that you don't wish to answer," says a "radio interview techniques" section of Texas Department of Transportation documents released under the Public Information Act. "You can use bridging to turn the question to your points."
One useful phrase, suggests the document — prepared by consultants who are to be paid $24,500 for talk-radio training for the campaign, and tweaked by the department — is this: "I think what you are really asking is ..."
The document also offers this timeless advice: "Keep calm. Leave wrestling to the pigs. They always end up looking like pigs."
The training document is part of the multimillion-dollar Keep Texas Moving campaign, the subject of a court hearing today.
The hearing comes after activist Terri Hall of the San Antonio Toll Party and Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom filed a court petition to stop the agency from spending public funds on the campaign, projected to cost $7 million to $9 million in highway money.
Hall also wants to block any lobbying attempts by transportation officials to persuade Congress to allow more toll roads.
The Keep Texas Moving campaign has a focus on toll roads and the Trans-Texas Corridor network. Both are touted by GOP Gov. Rick Perry and others as necessary in the face of congestion and gas-tax revenues that fall short of meeting road needs. Criticism has centered on the potential corridor route and on the state partnering with private firms to run toll roads.
In her court filing, Hall contends that transportation officials, in promoting the initiatives, are violating a ban on lobbying and on using their authority for political purposes.
The state says TxDOT is allowed by law to promote toll projects and that its campaign is a response to a call from the public and from elected officials for more information on road initiatives.
State District Judge Orlinda Naranjo of Travis County last month refused to order an immediate stop to the spending. Naranjo today will consider a state request that she dismiss the case.
The state contends the legal complaint is moot because an existing contract for media services was due to end Sept. 30.
Thompson Marketing of San Antonio got a state contract of nearly $2 million last year for the first phase of the project, which included a marketing development plan and such items as TV and radio spots, print ads, internet banner ads and billboards.
The company billed the agency in March regarding a Senate transportation hearing and in April and May for "legislature, media monitoring for strategic planning, messaging." Lawmakers this year worked to curb new private toll projects.
The state plans no more spending on "any future media placement under the current Keep Texas Moving campaign" but still needs to pay Thompson Marketing for some previous work, said an affidavit by Helen Havelka, the campaign's manager.
The agency also has a $20,000 contract for talk-radio training for transportation officials with the Rodman Co., which subcontracted with ViaNovo, whose team includes former Bush strategist Matthew Dowd. It plans another $4,500 training class, and the two consulting companies plan two telephone town-hall meetings at a cost of $17,480.
Rodman and ViaNovo worked on the radio training guide, said TxDOT spokesman Chris Lippincott, who also had input on the document, titled "Talking on Talk Radio."
"The talk radio environment runs the gamut from productive and thoughtful to vitriolic and silly," Lippincott said. "We certainly want to prepare (agency spokespeople) for all possibilities, and that includes everyone from a skeptical talk-show host to an outright hostile caller."
Read more in the San Antonio Express News
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Dallas lawmaker stalls funding for Fort Worth's river project - A Trinity tug of war
By MARIA RECIO - Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Oct. 17, 2007
Much of the area to the northwest of downtown Fort Worth would be redeveloped as part of the Trinity River Vision. The $435-million project would create an urban waterfront on the Trinity, opening it to recreation, green spaces, and residential and commercial development.
WASHINGTON -- For the first time in seven years, Congress has approved a massive $23.2 billion water projects bill that includes years of backed-up requests for flood control projects and improvements to rivers and harbors by the Army Corps of Engineers.
The bill includes funds for an $80 million Johnson Creek restoration project in Arlington, but there is something missing from Tarrant County's wish list: funding for a key aspect of Fort Worth's Trinity River Vision project. That's the city's $435 million showcase effort to redesign itself by creating an urban waterfront on the Trinity River, opening it to recreation, green spaces and residential and commercial development.
The tangled tale involves some political miscalculations, confusion over the changing nature of the project and the always baffling congressional funding process.
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, the central figure in the case, has worked tirelessly to promote the project in recent years. But this year she ran into a formidable obstacle: Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, the new chairwoman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.
The roadblock put up by Johnson is unlikely to stall Fort Worth's project for long. But it's a reality check and a reminder that nothing is certain in Congress and that local opposition to a local project can make things more difficult. Tarrant County Democrats oppose the project, and they are taking their complaints to new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Granger and others pushing for Trinity River Vision are confident that they will prevail and get full funding for Fort Worth's signature project.
Project history
Beginning in 2000, Granger, a former Fort Worth mayor, used her position on the House Appropriations Committee to direct funding, initially in small amounts, for environmental studies on the Trinity River project. Then, in 2004, after a water resources bill collapsed, she bypassed regular channels and obtained congressional authorization of $220 million for the Central City project, which is the Corps of Engineers' name for the flood control work in Fort Worth.
Granger's 2004 move was something of a coup because she succeeded in getting the Central City project "authorized" on an appropriation bill.
Congressional committees are split into authorizing panels, which set policy and overall funding levels, and the appropriations committee, which amounts to check-writers who direct the specific annual amounts that agencies can spend.
Members zealously guard their turf, as Granger discovered this year.
Johnson, who became chairman in January after the Democrats won control of Congress, blocked Granger's request for an authorization for the full cost of the Central City project, which incorporated $27.3 million for a neighboring project called the Riverside Oxbow. Under the plan, flood controls involving costly easements in west Fort Worth could be replaced by diverting water to the 600-acre Riverside Oxbow, which includes a dry bend of the Trinity in east Fort Worth.
But Johnson did not consider the Fort Worth Central City project to be one that was already in the works for Corps funding. Rather, she declared it would be considered a new project.
"We had taken a vote on our committee and unanimously said we would not consider any new projects," Johnson said in an interview. "We'll consider it when we start a new bill."
Johnson said that work will begin shortly on a new bill, assuming that the current water projects bill becomes law. Congress appears to have the votes to override a threatened veto from President Bush, who believes the bill is too costly.
Granger said she talked to Johnson about the Central City project in March, although the Dallas Democrat said, "I wasn't even aware of it until the day we were doing a mark-up," or vote, on the water projects bill.
Help from Hutchison
Stymied on the House side, Granger turned to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who inserted $247 million for the project in the Senate version of the bill -- the amount approved in 2004 plus the $27.3 million for the Riverside Oxbow.
When the bill went to a conference committee this summer to work out the differences between the House and Senate bills, Johnson again opposed the Trinity project and the funding was removed in the final conference even though the overall bill grew from $14 billion in the Senate and $15 billion in the House into a $23 billion projects bill.
"That was a problem on the House side," Hutchison said in an interview. "We definitely tried and Kay [Granger] tried very, very hard to get it in." Neither Hutchison nor Granger was on the conference committee.
Johnson, for her part, said, "I didn't want to add any new projects" and said she had the support of the leaders of her panel in the negotiations.
Johnson was successful in securing funds for her own Trinity River project in the bill: $298 million in authorization for flood control, wetlands and bridge modifications for Dallas' Trinity River Corridor. The Dallas project is separate from Fort Worth's but one House aide said that Johnson was clear "that there would be one Trinity River project" in the bill.
Johnson also did not block the $80 million Johnson Creek project in Arlington.
By Aug. 1, when the House passed the conference report bill on water projects, Granger was already looking ahead to next year's Water Resources Development Act. The conference report did not include the Central City funding and could not be amended on the floor.
In August, Granger brought Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to tour the project area.
"I have a very strong commitment to put it in whatever measure I can," Mica said Wednesday in the Capitol. "I guess there was some conflict with Ms. Johnson." Of the project, he said, "It makes a lot of sense, in my opinion. Hopefully, we can get a meeting of the minds and get it in the next measure."
Granger was upbeat in a recent interview. "It will be in the second WRDA bill," she said of the Fort Worth project.
"I don't consider it a setback," she said. "The next WRDA bill won't be so huge," making it more likely the project could stay in.
As for Johnson, Granger said, "She had a briefing -- absolutely." And the Central City project, said Granger, "is not a new start."
Although Granger stressed that the entire $435 million Trinity River Vision project, which splits costs 50-50 between federal and local sources, will have to be authorized "at some point," she said the Corps will continue to get funding for it through the appropriations process.
"I'm not worried about it," said Granger, noting the project is ahead of schedule. "We're in fine shape. There's no concern."
In the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008, House-passed bills include $8 million for construction, $1 million for bridge construction and $550,000 for economic development for Central City Fort Worth. The levels will still have to be negotiated with the Senate.
JOHNSON CREEK
The Tarrant County project that did receive funding in the recent water bill is the new Johnson Creek restoration project that has been more than a decade in the works. The project, expected to start soon, will help stabilize creek banks, add trails and other recreational amenities, and a new pedestrian bridge between the new Cowboys stadium and the future Glorypark development. Local officials have said the total cost of the project is expected to be $50 million. But the water bill said the overall cost is $80 million, with as much as $52 million coming from the federal government.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Much of the area to the northwest of downtown Fort Worth would be redeveloped as part of the Trinity River Vision. The $435-million project would create an urban waterfront on the Trinity, opening it to recreation, green spaces, and residential and commercial development.
WASHINGTON -- For the first time in seven years, Congress has approved a massive $23.2 billion water projects bill that includes years of backed-up requests for flood control projects and improvements to rivers and harbors by the Army Corps of Engineers.
The bill includes funds for an $80 million Johnson Creek restoration project in Arlington, but there is something missing from Tarrant County's wish list: funding for a key aspect of Fort Worth's Trinity River Vision project. That's the city's $435 million showcase effort to redesign itself by creating an urban waterfront on the Trinity River, opening it to recreation, green spaces and residential and commercial development.
The tangled tale involves some political miscalculations, confusion over the changing nature of the project and the always baffling congressional funding process.
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, the central figure in the case, has worked tirelessly to promote the project in recent years. But this year she ran into a formidable obstacle: Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, the new chairwoman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.
The roadblock put up by Johnson is unlikely to stall Fort Worth's project for long. But it's a reality check and a reminder that nothing is certain in Congress and that local opposition to a local project can make things more difficult. Tarrant County Democrats oppose the project, and they are taking their complaints to new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Granger and others pushing for Trinity River Vision are confident that they will prevail and get full funding for Fort Worth's signature project.
Project history
Beginning in 2000, Granger, a former Fort Worth mayor, used her position on the House Appropriations Committee to direct funding, initially in small amounts, for environmental studies on the Trinity River project. Then, in 2004, after a water resources bill collapsed, she bypassed regular channels and obtained congressional authorization of $220 million for the Central City project, which is the Corps of Engineers' name for the flood control work in Fort Worth.
Granger's 2004 move was something of a coup because she succeeded in getting the Central City project "authorized" on an appropriation bill.
Congressional committees are split into authorizing panels, which set policy and overall funding levels, and the appropriations committee, which amounts to check-writers who direct the specific annual amounts that agencies can spend.
Members zealously guard their turf, as Granger discovered this year.
Johnson, who became chairman in January after the Democrats won control of Congress, blocked Granger's request for an authorization for the full cost of the Central City project, which incorporated $27.3 million for a neighboring project called the Riverside Oxbow. Under the plan, flood controls involving costly easements in west Fort Worth could be replaced by diverting water to the 600-acre Riverside Oxbow, which includes a dry bend of the Trinity in east Fort Worth.
But Johnson did not consider the Fort Worth Central City project to be one that was already in the works for Corps funding. Rather, she declared it would be considered a new project.
"We had taken a vote on our committee and unanimously said we would not consider any new projects," Johnson said in an interview. "We'll consider it when we start a new bill."
Johnson said that work will begin shortly on a new bill, assuming that the current water projects bill becomes law. Congress appears to have the votes to override a threatened veto from President Bush, who believes the bill is too costly.
Granger said she talked to Johnson about the Central City project in March, although the Dallas Democrat said, "I wasn't even aware of it until the day we were doing a mark-up," or vote, on the water projects bill.
Help from Hutchison
Stymied on the House side, Granger turned to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who inserted $247 million for the project in the Senate version of the bill -- the amount approved in 2004 plus the $27.3 million for the Riverside Oxbow.
When the bill went to a conference committee this summer to work out the differences between the House and Senate bills, Johnson again opposed the Trinity project and the funding was removed in the final conference even though the overall bill grew from $14 billion in the Senate and $15 billion in the House into a $23 billion projects bill.
"That was a problem on the House side," Hutchison said in an interview. "We definitely tried and Kay [Granger] tried very, very hard to get it in." Neither Hutchison nor Granger was on the conference committee.
Johnson, for her part, said, "I didn't want to add any new projects" and said she had the support of the leaders of her panel in the negotiations.
Johnson was successful in securing funds for her own Trinity River project in the bill: $298 million in authorization for flood control, wetlands and bridge modifications for Dallas' Trinity River Corridor. The Dallas project is separate from Fort Worth's but one House aide said that Johnson was clear "that there would be one Trinity River project" in the bill.
Johnson also did not block the $80 million Johnson Creek project in Arlington.
By Aug. 1, when the House passed the conference report bill on water projects, Granger was already looking ahead to next year's Water Resources Development Act. The conference report did not include the Central City funding and could not be amended on the floor.
In August, Granger brought Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to tour the project area.
"I have a very strong commitment to put it in whatever measure I can," Mica said Wednesday in the Capitol. "I guess there was some conflict with Ms. Johnson." Of the project, he said, "It makes a lot of sense, in my opinion. Hopefully, we can get a meeting of the minds and get it in the next measure."
Granger was upbeat in a recent interview. "It will be in the second WRDA bill," she said of the Fort Worth project.
"I don't consider it a setback," she said. "The next WRDA bill won't be so huge," making it more likely the project could stay in.
As for Johnson, Granger said, "She had a briefing -- absolutely." And the Central City project, said Granger, "is not a new start."
Although Granger stressed that the entire $435 million Trinity River Vision project, which splits costs 50-50 between federal and local sources, will have to be authorized "at some point," she said the Corps will continue to get funding for it through the appropriations process.
"I'm not worried about it," said Granger, noting the project is ahead of schedule. "We're in fine shape. There's no concern."
In the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008, House-passed bills include $8 million for construction, $1 million for bridge construction and $550,000 for economic development for Central City Fort Worth. The levels will still have to be negotiated with the Senate.
JOHNSON CREEK
The Tarrant County project that did receive funding in the recent water bill is the new Johnson Creek restoration project that has been more than a decade in the works. The project, expected to start soon, will help stabilize creek banks, add trails and other recreational amenities, and a new pedestrian bridge between the new Cowboys stadium and the future Glorypark development. Local officials have said the total cost of the project is expected to be $50 million. But the water bill said the overall cost is $80 million, with as much as $52 million coming from the federal government.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
NTTA TRAFFIC ADVISORY - IH-35 E closing
By Sam Lopez - NTTA - Oct. 16, 2007
There will be some temporary closures at the south end of the Dallas North Tollway this weekend, so that construction crews can switch traffic onto new portions of roadway.
The northbound IH-35E entrance ramp to the Tollway will be closed on Sunday, October 21 from 12:01 a.m. until 6 a.m. The Harry Hines Boulevard and McKinnon Street entrances to the Tollway will also be temporarily closed. Motorists wanting to travel north on the Tollway may enter the facility via the Wycliff Avenue Main Lane Toll Plaza or any other entrance ramps north of that location. From 6 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Sunday, only one lane will be open northbound on the Tollway from Harry Hines Blvd./ McKinnon St. to the Wycliff Avenue Main Lane Toll Plaza.
Southbound traffic will also be affected as only one lane will be open from Wycliff Avenue to Harry Hines Blvd./McKinnon St. from 10 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 20 until 2 p.m. on Sunday, Oct. 21.
The southbound Tollway exit ramp to IH-35E will not be affected.
There will be some temporary closures at the south end of the Dallas North Tollway this weekend, so that construction crews can switch traffic onto new portions of roadway.
The northbound IH-35E entrance ramp to the Tollway will be closed on Sunday, October 21 from 12:01 a.m. until 6 a.m. The Harry Hines Boulevard and McKinnon Street entrances to the Tollway will also be temporarily closed. Motorists wanting to travel north on the Tollway may enter the facility via the Wycliff Avenue Main Lane Toll Plaza or any other entrance ramps north of that location. From 6 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Sunday, only one lane will be open northbound on the Tollway from Harry Hines Blvd./ McKinnon St. to the Wycliff Avenue Main Lane Toll Plaza.
Southbound traffic will also be affected as only one lane will be open from Wycliff Avenue to Harry Hines Blvd./McKinnon St. from 10 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 20 until 2 p.m. on Sunday, Oct. 21.
The southbound Tollway exit ramp to IH-35E will not be affected.
Trans Texas Corridor I-69 SECRET meeting in Fort Bend
By Terri Hall - T.U.R.F. - Wednesday, 10 October 2007
In this article, Transportation Commissioner Ted Houghton repeatedly refers to Texans' FREEways as "assets" as if the PUBLIC'S highways are theirs to sell to the highest bidder on Wall Street! To make matters worse, they're holding a SECRET, CLOSED DOOR meeting to discuss the next controversial leg of the Trans Texas Corridor, TTC 69. Also noteworthy, businesses, ie - the Chamber of Commerce, are invited to the table, but NOT the taxpaying public whose community will be paved over by this corridor! How is this getting "community feedback?" Secrecy and involving multi-national corporations has become standard operating procedure for these trade corridors.
TURF's Board member, Hank Gilbert, is mentioned in the article.
Link to article here.
Trans-Texas Corridor talks include Fort Bend officials
Committee formed by state Transportation Commission
By ZEN T. C. ZHENG - Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle - Oct. 8, 2007,
A controversial plan to create an interstate highway from the Texas-Mexico border to Texarkana is gaining momentum in Fort Bend County as local leaders are set to begin meeting in two weeks to brainstorm on how the project should be carried out in this area.
Ted Houghton, Texas Transportation commissioner, who was in Rosenberg Wednesday to promote the project, will be in Sugar Land Oct. 26 to discuss the Trans-Texas Corridor-69 proposal with the 24-member group formed by the commission.
'Transportation crossroad'
Houghton said the project, which would turn Fort Bend and its vicinity into a "transportation crossroad," would enable fast cargo deliveries to various ports with rails or truck lanes and increase mobility for passengers with high-speed toll lanes generally along U.S. 59."We need to bring in the money to create economic opportunities," Houghton said at the annual Fort Bend Regional Infrastructure Conference sponsored by the Rosenberg-Richmond Area Chamber of Commerce.
However, the project has drawn opposition from environmentalists, property-rights proponents and those who see the corridor as part of a proposal to create a North America Free Trade Agreement highway to connect Mexico to Canada through the U.S. heartland.
Meeting closed to public
The group to meet on Oct. 26 at Sugar Land City Hall comprises county judges, mayors of cities along the proposed route, leaders of area chambers of commerce and various ports including those of Houston, Freeport and Victoria, and representatives of metropolitan planning organizations. Members are mostly from the Fort Bend, Wharton and Victoria areas.Houghton told the Chronicle Wednesday that the meeting will be closed to the public and media.
He said the group, one of six formed in the project area from Brownsville to Texarkana, will have the opportunity to help tailor the project to "local needs."
"It's a positive thing. We are letting these regions plan it out," Houghton said. "We hope by mid-next year, the group will come up with some recommendations to tell us what they would like to see built."
The Interstate 69 project is part of the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor network at least seven years in planning by the Texas Department of Transportation and supported by Gov. Rick Perry.
1,200-foot wide corridors?
The network is conceived as a cross-state road system of new and existing highways, railroads and utility rights of way. It would have separate lanes for passenger and truck traffic, freight and high-speed commuter rails, as well as infrastructure for utilities including water, oil and gas pipelines, electricity and telecommunications services. One revenue option to support the network would be toll fees.I-69 would generally follow the U.S. 59 footprint with a section along U.S. 77 from Texarkana to three possible terminals along the Texas-Mexico border: Brownsville, McAllen and Laredo.
Another major component of the network, Trans-Texas Corridor-35, would run along Interstate 35 from Denison to the Rio Grande Valley. Two other possible routes would run along Interstate 45 from Dallas to Houston and Interstate 10 from El Paso to Orange.
According to Gaby Garcia, a spokeswoman for the state transportation agency, each of the two proposed major corridors would stretch about 600 miles and cost $12 billion only for the road portion, excluding rails and utility infrastructure.
Houghton said that critics' assertion that the corridors would be 1,200 feet in width is not true. However, he said the exact width couldn't be determined until a definitive plan is shaped with sufficient local input.
County judge's endorsement
Houghton said he and Fort Bend County Judge Bob Hebert "had a great conversation" about the project during a private meeting.While asking Houghton to present a "fine print" of the plan, Hebert said he supports the project.
"I'm excited about it. We need the road," Hebert said Wednesday.
However, some local community leaders deplore what they perceive to be a lack of awareness among Fort Bend residents about the Trans-Texas Corridor concept.
The county's Democratic Party on Sept. 29 brought Hank Gilbert, a Tyler rancher who lost his race for Texas commissioner of agriculture last year, to Sugar Land to rally support for his crusade against the project. Event organizer Jenny Hurley said about 50 people attended the meeting.
Grand Parkway not a part?
Some opponents of a state plan to extend the Grand Parkway as a toll road from U.S. 59 south and then east to link Texas 288 are concerned that the expansion project could be part of the I-69 project. But, Houghton dismissed that notion.However, former Texas Transportation Commissioner John W. "Johnny" Johnson in 2000 told the Chronicle that I-69 was being proposed to pass north and west of Houston, merging with segments of the Grand Parkway, including the stretch between the Katy Freeway and U.S. 59. Johnson also said the proposed Grand Parkway segment south of U.S. 59 could be used as a continued truck route from I-69 to reach the Port of Houston via Texas 288 and Beltway 8.
"A Beautiful asset"
Calling U.S. 59 "a beautiful asset," Houghton said tracing I-69 along U.S. 59 would mean less additional land needed for the project, thus having less impact on the community along the route."We have already the asset. Now we're trying to enhance the asset," he said.
With the project, U.S. 59 at all its intersections would be turned into overpasses, he said.
Houghton said project planners have been examining a variety of ways to fund the project. However, funding remains a difficult task, he said.
"We have looked at everything possible," he said.
The state's goal is to begin construction on the project in two to three years and have it completed within five to 10 years, Houghton said.
In this article, Transportation Commissioner Ted Houghton repeatedly refers to Texans' FREEways as "assets" as if the PUBLIC'S highways are theirs to sell to the highest bidder on Wall Street! To make matters worse, they're holding a SECRET, CLOSED DOOR meeting to discuss the next controversial leg of the Trans Texas Corridor, TTC 69. Also noteworthy, businesses, ie - the Chamber of Commerce, are invited to the table, but NOT the taxpaying public whose community will be paved over by this corridor! How is this getting "community feedback?" Secrecy and involving multi-national corporations has become standard operating procedure for these trade corridors.
TURF's Board member, Hank Gilbert, is mentioned in the article.
Link to article here.
Trans-Texas Corridor talks include Fort Bend officials
Committee formed by state Transportation Commission
By ZEN T. C. ZHENG - Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle - Oct. 8, 2007,
A controversial plan to create an interstate highway from the Texas-Mexico border to Texarkana is gaining momentum in Fort Bend County as local leaders are set to begin meeting in two weeks to brainstorm on how the project should be carried out in this area.
Ted Houghton, Texas Transportation commissioner, who was in Rosenberg Wednesday to promote the project, will be in Sugar Land Oct. 26 to discuss the Trans-Texas Corridor-69 proposal with the 24-member group formed by the commission.
'Transportation crossroad'
Houghton said the project, which would turn Fort Bend and its vicinity into a "transportation crossroad," would enable fast cargo deliveries to various ports with rails or truck lanes and increase mobility for passengers with high-speed toll lanes generally along U.S. 59."We need to bring in the money to create economic opportunities," Houghton said at the annual Fort Bend Regional Infrastructure Conference sponsored by the Rosenberg-Richmond Area Chamber of Commerce.
However, the project has drawn opposition from environmentalists, property-rights proponents and those who see the corridor as part of a proposal to create a North America Free Trade Agreement highway to connect Mexico to Canada through the U.S. heartland.
Meeting closed to public
The group to meet on Oct. 26 at Sugar Land City Hall comprises county judges, mayors of cities along the proposed route, leaders of area chambers of commerce and various ports including those of Houston, Freeport and Victoria, and representatives of metropolitan planning organizations. Members are mostly from the Fort Bend, Wharton and Victoria areas.Houghton told the Chronicle Wednesday that the meeting will be closed to the public and media.
He said the group, one of six formed in the project area from Brownsville to Texarkana, will have the opportunity to help tailor the project to "local needs."
"It's a positive thing. We are letting these regions plan it out," Houghton said. "We hope by mid-next year, the group will come up with some recommendations to tell us what they would like to see built."
The Interstate 69 project is part of the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor network at least seven years in planning by the Texas Department of Transportation and supported by Gov. Rick Perry.
1,200-foot wide corridors?
The network is conceived as a cross-state road system of new and existing highways, railroads and utility rights of way. It would have separate lanes for passenger and truck traffic, freight and high-speed commuter rails, as well as infrastructure for utilities including water, oil and gas pipelines, electricity and telecommunications services. One revenue option to support the network would be toll fees.I-69 would generally follow the U.S. 59 footprint with a section along U.S. 77 from Texarkana to three possible terminals along the Texas-Mexico border: Brownsville, McAllen and Laredo.
Another major component of the network, Trans-Texas Corridor-35, would run along Interstate 35 from Denison to the Rio Grande Valley. Two other possible routes would run along Interstate 45 from Dallas to Houston and Interstate 10 from El Paso to Orange.
According to Gaby Garcia, a spokeswoman for the state transportation agency, each of the two proposed major corridors would stretch about 600 miles and cost $12 billion only for the road portion, excluding rails and utility infrastructure.
Houghton said that critics' assertion that the corridors would be 1,200 feet in width is not true. However, he said the exact width couldn't be determined until a definitive plan is shaped with sufficient local input.
County judge's endorsement
Houghton said he and Fort Bend County Judge Bob Hebert "had a great conversation" about the project during a private meeting.While asking Houghton to present a "fine print" of the plan, Hebert said he supports the project.
"I'm excited about it. We need the road," Hebert said Wednesday.
However, some local community leaders deplore what they perceive to be a lack of awareness among Fort Bend residents about the Trans-Texas Corridor concept.
The county's Democratic Party on Sept. 29 brought Hank Gilbert, a Tyler rancher who lost his race for Texas commissioner of agriculture last year, to Sugar Land to rally support for his crusade against the project. Event organizer Jenny Hurley said about 50 people attended the meeting.
Grand Parkway not a part?
Some opponents of a state plan to extend the Grand Parkway as a toll road from U.S. 59 south and then east to link Texas 288 are concerned that the expansion project could be part of the I-69 project. But, Houghton dismissed that notion.However, former Texas Transportation Commissioner John W. "Johnny" Johnson in 2000 told the Chronicle that I-69 was being proposed to pass north and west of Houston, merging with segments of the Grand Parkway, including the stretch between the Katy Freeway and U.S. 59. Johnson also said the proposed Grand Parkway segment south of U.S. 59 could be used as a continued truck route from I-69 to reach the Port of Houston via Texas 288 and Beltway 8.
"A Beautiful asset"
Calling U.S. 59 "a beautiful asset," Houghton said tracing I-69 along U.S. 59 would mean less additional land needed for the project, thus having less impact on the community along the route."We have already the asset. Now we're trying to enhance the asset," he said.
With the project, U.S. 59 at all its intersections would be turned into overpasses, he said.
Houghton said project planners have been examining a variety of ways to fund the project. However, funding remains a difficult task, he said.
"We have looked at everything possible," he said.
The state's goal is to begin construction on the project in two to three years and have it completed within five to 10 years, Houghton said.
EXCLUSIVE: SECRET briefing on toll rates for BIG BUSINESS before public gets access
By Terri Hall - T.U.R.F. - Tuesday, 16 October 2007
The San Antonio Mobility Coalition, SAMCo, run by Joe Krier, along with the San Antonio Free Trade Alliance will be hosting a secret meeting October 19 at the Valero campus prior to even the PUBLIC getting access to toll rates and the toll rate escalation for 281 on October 22. The highway lobby that feeds at the public trough was slated to get advance access the PUBLIC hasn't been privy to. This is especially distressing considering SAMCO and the Free Trade Alliance are taxpayer funded. Citizens have to take time off work and head downtown to a place where parking is scarce (MPO mtgs at Via) just to hear this information on their own dime, yet our public agencies bring this vital toll tax information right to the business community's doorstep while they're all on the clock (some of whom are on the taxpayer's dime, too!).
It's an outrage that those who will profit off these toll plans get special treatment at the taxpayers' expense! However, through a turn of events, we asked that the tolling authority brief citizens FIRST on the toll rates at our Tuesday meeting and they AGREED! The taxpayers demanded transparency, sunshine, accountability, and that the public get TOP PRIORITY, and now the PUBLIC gets to scoop the HIGHWAY LOBBY!
Government ought to be operating without even the APPEARANCE of impropriety, this SAMCo meeting smacks of corporate cronyism and backroom deal-making which has become the norm with Perry and his highway dept.
Not only will the hogs at the trough be treated to the potential pricetag road contractors can reap for tolling our public highways, the stated purpose of the meeting is to strategize on how to influence the upcoming MPO vote that must approve the toll rates to move forward.
The purpose of the briefing is to provide:
1) An advance preview of the US 281 and Loop 1604 financial plans prior to these critical MPO meetings;
2) A forum to discuss cooperative action and joint strategy to support the financial plans and SMP amendments at the October 22 and December 3 MPO meetings.
3) Coordination of supportive resolutions, letters, emails, testimony, editorials, etc. prior to the final MPO votes.
Read the entire invitation here.
This meeting is significant because we caught them with their hands in the till using taxpayer money to lobby against the taxpayer and caught BIG BUSINESS getting special privileges NOT afforded the public until an MPO mtg Monday, Oct 22. Why does BIG BUSINESS need to know the toll rates and 281 profit levels before the general public?
SEE LIST OF CORPORATIONS GIVEN A SEAT AT THE TABLE BELOW
Mad yet? Read the list of the corporations involved in SECRET meetings with the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments to push for a North American Union in what amounts to forming a trade cartel. Time to dust off the anti-trust unit at the Justice Department!
Full World Net Daily article here.
As WND previously reported, the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, dominated the SPP closed-door meetings with the SPP trilateral working groups, the trilateral cabinet members in attendance and President Bush, Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, and Harper at the third annual SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, on Aug. 20-21.
WND has also reported the NACC is a shadowy council of 30 top North American multinational corporations self-appointed by the Chambers of Commerce in each of the three countries to constitute the sole outside advisory to the SPP.
The 30 companies composing the NACC are listed on a memo posted on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce website.
In the United States, the companies on the NACC are:
* Campbell Soup Company
* Chevron Corporation
* Ford Motor Corporation
* FedEx Corporation
* General Electric Company
* General Motors Corporation
* Kansas City Southern
* Lockheed Martin Corporation
* Merck & Co., Inc.
* Mittal Steel USA
* New York Life Insurance Company
* Procter & Gamble
* UPS
* Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
* Whirlpool Corporation
No union leaders, public interest groups, environmental advocates or news media have ever attended the closed-door of the NACC with the SPP.
According to a document on the Commerce Department's SPP website, the organization of the NACC was agreed upon by the three leaders on March 31, 2006.
"We are pleased to announce the creation of a North American Competitiveness Council," the White House announced the same day.
"The Council will comprise members of the private sector from each country," the White House said, "and will provide us recommendations on North American competitiveness, including, among others, areas such as automotive and transportation, steel, manufacturing, and services. The Council will meet annually with security and prosperity Ministers and will engage with senior government officials on an ongoing basis."
Read these to open your eyes to other secret meetings for special interests:
Secret meeting on TTC 69, corporations invited, public/press is not.
More secret meetings with corporations invited, public/press shut out.
here, here, and here.
The San Antonio Mobility Coalition, SAMCo, run by Joe Krier, along with the San Antonio Free Trade Alliance will be hosting a secret meeting October 19 at the Valero campus prior to even the PUBLIC getting access to toll rates and the toll rate escalation for 281 on October 22. The highway lobby that feeds at the public trough was slated to get advance access the PUBLIC hasn't been privy to. This is especially distressing considering SAMCO and the Free Trade Alliance are taxpayer funded. Citizens have to take time off work and head downtown to a place where parking is scarce (MPO mtgs at Via) just to hear this information on their own dime, yet our public agencies bring this vital toll tax information right to the business community's doorstep while they're all on the clock (some of whom are on the taxpayer's dime, too!).
It's an outrage that those who will profit off these toll plans get special treatment at the taxpayers' expense! However, through a turn of events, we asked that the tolling authority brief citizens FIRST on the toll rates at our Tuesday meeting and they AGREED! The taxpayers demanded transparency, sunshine, accountability, and that the public get TOP PRIORITY, and now the PUBLIC gets to scoop the HIGHWAY LOBBY!
Government ought to be operating without even the APPEARANCE of impropriety, this SAMCo meeting smacks of corporate cronyism and backroom deal-making which has become the norm with Perry and his highway dept.
Not only will the hogs at the trough be treated to the potential pricetag road contractors can reap for tolling our public highways, the stated purpose of the meeting is to strategize on how to influence the upcoming MPO vote that must approve the toll rates to move forward.
The purpose of the briefing is to provide:
1) An advance preview of the US 281 and Loop 1604 financial plans prior to these critical MPO meetings;
2) A forum to discuss cooperative action and joint strategy to support the financial plans and SMP amendments at the October 22 and December 3 MPO meetings.
3) Coordination of supportive resolutions, letters, emails, testimony, editorials, etc. prior to the final MPO votes.
Read the entire invitation here.
This meeting is significant because we caught them with their hands in the till using taxpayer money to lobby against the taxpayer and caught BIG BUSINESS getting special privileges NOT afforded the public until an MPO mtg Monday, Oct 22. Why does BIG BUSINESS need to know the toll rates and 281 profit levels before the general public?
SEE LIST OF CORPORATIONS GIVEN A SEAT AT THE TABLE BELOW
Mad yet? Read the list of the corporations involved in SECRET meetings with the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments to push for a North American Union in what amounts to forming a trade cartel. Time to dust off the anti-trust unit at the Justice Department!
Full World Net Daily article here.
As WND previously reported, the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, dominated the SPP closed-door meetings with the SPP trilateral working groups, the trilateral cabinet members in attendance and President Bush, Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, and Harper at the third annual SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, on Aug. 20-21.
WND has also reported the NACC is a shadowy council of 30 top North American multinational corporations self-appointed by the Chambers of Commerce in each of the three countries to constitute the sole outside advisory to the SPP.
The 30 companies composing the NACC are listed on a memo posted on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce website.
In the United States, the companies on the NACC are:
* Campbell Soup Company
* Chevron Corporation
* Ford Motor Corporation
* FedEx Corporation
* General Electric Company
* General Motors Corporation
* Kansas City Southern
* Lockheed Martin Corporation
* Merck & Co., Inc.
* Mittal Steel USA
* New York Life Insurance Company
* Procter & Gamble
* UPS
* Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
* Whirlpool Corporation
No union leaders, public interest groups, environmental advocates or news media have ever attended the closed-door of the NACC with the SPP.
According to a document on the Commerce Department's SPP website, the organization of the NACC was agreed upon by the three leaders on March 31, 2006.
"We are pleased to announce the creation of a North American Competitiveness Council," the White House announced the same day.
"The Council will comprise members of the private sector from each country," the White House said, "and will provide us recommendations on North American competitiveness, including, among others, areas such as automotive and transportation, steel, manufacturing, and services. The Council will meet annually with security and prosperity Ministers and will engage with senior government officials on an ongoing basis."
Read these to open your eyes to other secret meetings for special interests:
Secret meeting on TTC 69, corporations invited, public/press is not.
More secret meetings with corporations invited, public/press shut out.
here, here, and here.
17 cents will get you a mile on U.S. 281
By Patrick Driscoll - San Antonio Express-News - 10/16/2007
Noisy, anxious speculation over how much motorists will pay to use toll lanes on U.S. 281 has ended with a silent revelation.
Barring legal action and a dramatic turnaround in the courts, drivers in two- and three-axle vehicles could pay 17 cents a mile when the first four miles of U.S. 281 toll lanes open in 2012, according to documents posted on the Web without fanfare Monday.
Rates might increase 2.75 percent a year through 2017 and then 3 percent annually after that, about as fast as consumer inflation has been rising.
The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority, which will develop the U.S. 281 tollway, negotiated for months behind closed doors with the Texas Department of Transportation to set the toll rates and had carefully kept the numbers hushed.
But the local Metropolitan Planning Organization must sign off on the deal, and following its habit of releasing information before meetings, posted the proposed toll fees. The organization meets next Monday.
"There you go," spokesman Scott Ericksen said. "It's just our process."
Now that the rates are out there, a furious long-running debate over toll roads will now shift to new ground.
"I'm just glad we're finally getting down to the nitty-gritty," said Jim Reed, a mobility authority board member.
Terri Hall, founder of San Antonio Toll Party and Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, said the fees, while comparable to Houston and Dallas, are higher than some other states — a claim borne out by a recent state audit.
"Texans have to be asking themselves, 'Why do we have to pay so much?'" she said.
Vic Boyer, director of the public-private San Antonio Mobility Coalition, said business and road industry officials are so far warm to the rates.
"I think they feel fairly comfortable with what they've seen," he said.
Rebuilding U.S. 281 into a tolled expressway with nontoll frontage roads from Loop 1604 to Marshall Road is just a start for the mobility authority.
The agency hopes to use $258 million in public funds and sell bonds backed by decades of toll fees to add $1 billion worth of toll lanes to highways:
The first 4 miles of U.S. 281 — which officials say will cost $200 million, a third more than estimates earlier this year. Construction starts next summer.
U.S. 281 toll lanes to Comal County. No timetable has been set.
Loop 1604 from Culebra Road to U.S. 281. Construction starts in late 2009.
Plans also call for tolled interchange ramps along Loop 1604 to give motorists faster shots to other freeways such as U.S. 281. The proposed toll rates under consideration for 2012 suggest charging 57 cents for each ramp.
Emergency and military vehicles would get free passage on toll lanes. VIA Metropolitan Transit would get a $42,000 a year break, enough to allow buses and vans to ride free, but the agency would have the option of spreading its exemption among other vehicles, such as vanpools.
In 2012 trucks would be charged 46 cents a mile on toll lanes and $1.15 per interchange ramp.
There would be no tollbooths. Instead, motorists would pay via an electronic scanning system.
"Our goal is to be reasonable, to keep it affordable," mobility authority Chairman Bill Thornton said.
The authority will brief the nonprofit mobility coalition at a private meeting Friday at Valero Energy Corp. to strategize support for toll plans.
"We want everyone to have a chance to see this, to ask questions," Boyer said. "We were on the ball and asked for it."
When Hall heard about Boyer's meeting, she called Reed to set up a presentation for toll critics, which will be held at 6 p.m. today at Chester's Burgers at 16609 San Pedro Ave. She said she wants to know how much profit U.S. 281 toll lanes will generate.
"That's the real crux of the matter," she said. "That'll be interesting."
What's it going to cost?
The Alamo Regional MObility Authority on Monday released rates for toll lanes in 2012.
Vehicles - 2-3 axles incl. govt.: 17 cents cost per mile / Interchange ramps 57 cents
Vehicles - More than 3 axles: 46 cents cost per mile/ Interchange ramps $1.15
Vehicles - Emergency, miliatary and most public transit: No charge cost per mile; No charge interchange ramps.
Rates will increase 2.75% annually now through 2017 and 3% annually after that.
Planned toll lanes to open in 2012 on U.S. 281 are from HWY 1604 to Marshall Road.
Read story and see graphic in San Antonio Express-News.
Noisy, anxious speculation over how much motorists will pay to use toll lanes on U.S. 281 has ended with a silent revelation.
Barring legal action and a dramatic turnaround in the courts, drivers in two- and three-axle vehicles could pay 17 cents a mile when the first four miles of U.S. 281 toll lanes open in 2012, according to documents posted on the Web without fanfare Monday.
Rates might increase 2.75 percent a year through 2017 and then 3 percent annually after that, about as fast as consumer inflation has been rising.
The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority, which will develop the U.S. 281 tollway, negotiated for months behind closed doors with the Texas Department of Transportation to set the toll rates and had carefully kept the numbers hushed.
But the local Metropolitan Planning Organization must sign off on the deal, and following its habit of releasing information before meetings, posted the proposed toll fees. The organization meets next Monday.
"There you go," spokesman Scott Ericksen said. "It's just our process."
Now that the rates are out there, a furious long-running debate over toll roads will now shift to new ground.
"I'm just glad we're finally getting down to the nitty-gritty," said Jim Reed, a mobility authority board member.
Terri Hall, founder of San Antonio Toll Party and Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, said the fees, while comparable to Houston and Dallas, are higher than some other states — a claim borne out by a recent state audit.
"Texans have to be asking themselves, 'Why do we have to pay so much?'" she said.
Vic Boyer, director of the public-private San Antonio Mobility Coalition, said business and road industry officials are so far warm to the rates.
"I think they feel fairly comfortable with what they've seen," he said.
Rebuilding U.S. 281 into a tolled expressway with nontoll frontage roads from Loop 1604 to Marshall Road is just a start for the mobility authority.
The agency hopes to use $258 million in public funds and sell bonds backed by decades of toll fees to add $1 billion worth of toll lanes to highways:
The first 4 miles of U.S. 281 — which officials say will cost $200 million, a third more than estimates earlier this year. Construction starts next summer.
U.S. 281 toll lanes to Comal County. No timetable has been set.
Loop 1604 from Culebra Road to U.S. 281. Construction starts in late 2009.
Plans also call for tolled interchange ramps along Loop 1604 to give motorists faster shots to other freeways such as U.S. 281. The proposed toll rates under consideration for 2012 suggest charging 57 cents for each ramp.
Emergency and military vehicles would get free passage on toll lanes. VIA Metropolitan Transit would get a $42,000 a year break, enough to allow buses and vans to ride free, but the agency would have the option of spreading its exemption among other vehicles, such as vanpools.
In 2012 trucks would be charged 46 cents a mile on toll lanes and $1.15 per interchange ramp.
There would be no tollbooths. Instead, motorists would pay via an electronic scanning system.
"Our goal is to be reasonable, to keep it affordable," mobility authority Chairman Bill Thornton said.
The authority will brief the nonprofit mobility coalition at a private meeting Friday at Valero Energy Corp. to strategize support for toll plans.
"We want everyone to have a chance to see this, to ask questions," Boyer said. "We were on the ball and asked for it."
When Hall heard about Boyer's meeting, she called Reed to set up a presentation for toll critics, which will be held at 6 p.m. today at Chester's Burgers at 16609 San Pedro Ave. She said she wants to know how much profit U.S. 281 toll lanes will generate.
"That's the real crux of the matter," she said. "That'll be interesting."
What's it going to cost?
The Alamo Regional MObility Authority on Monday released rates for toll lanes in 2012.
Vehicles - 2-3 axles incl. govt.: 17 cents cost per mile / Interchange ramps 57 cents
Vehicles - More than 3 axles: 46 cents cost per mile/ Interchange ramps $1.15
Vehicles - Emergency, miliatary and most public transit: No charge cost per mile; No charge interchange ramps.
Rates will increase 2.75% annually now through 2017 and 3% annually after that.
Planned toll lanes to open in 2012 on U.S. 281 are from HWY 1604 to Marshall Road.
Read story and see graphic in San Antonio Express-News.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Texas leads nation in number of water polluters
By R.A. DYER - Star-Telegram staff writer - Fri. Oct. 12, 2007
AUSTIN -- Texas led the nation in the number of facilities discharging pollution at levels exceeding federal clean water guidelines, according to a new report from an environmental watchdog group.
The Austin-based Environment Texas said that in 2005, 318 facilities in the state reported 1,340 incidents in which they discharged more pollution than permitted under the federal Clean Water Act. The group also reported that more than 53 percent of Texas' industrial and municipal facilities discharged more pollution in 2005 than permitted under the law.
"With so many facilities dumping so much pollution, no one should be surprised that more than half of Texas waterways are unsafe for swimming and fishing -- but we should be outraged," Environment Texas Citizen Outreach director Brad Hicks said in a statement.
Harris County was No. 1 among all U.S. counties for the most facilities that exceeded their Clean Water Act permits at least once, according to the report.
The report was released Thursday to commemorate the 35th anniversary next week of the Clean Water Act.
About the report
Using information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gathered under the federal Freedom of Information Act, Environment Texas reviewed the extent of discharges for all facilities that exceeded their Clean Water Act permits in 2005. The director of Environment Texas said 2005 was the last full year for which comprehensive data was available.
In Tarrant County
During the study period, the only Tarrant County entity to report pollution discharges that exceeded the allowable levels was the city of Azle. The report lists seven such discharges by the municipality. Azle utility manager Rick White said the discharges occurred at a wastewater plant at Ash Creek and were largely due to malfunctioning equipment. He said the equipment supplier corrected the problem.
"Everybody has problems but we haven't had any significant problem since then," he said.
Other findings
Nationally, more than 3,600 major facilities, or 57 percent, exceeded their Clean Water Act limits at least once in 2005. The facilities exceeded the limits a total of 24,400 times during that period, which means that many exceeded their permits more than once and for more than one pollutant, according to the report.
Texas is not among the 10 states with the highest percentage of major facilities that exceeded their limits at least once. Those states are Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Ohio, Connecticut, New York, North Dakota, California, and West Virginia.
Texas is among the 10 U.S. states with the most violations during that period. The others are Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida.
The report also noted that California, Pennsylvania and Ohio were the states with at least 100 incidents that were at least 500 percent above the permitted level.
Pollution problems
More than 20,000 bodies of waters in the United States are too polluted to meet basic quality standards, according to the EPA.
Water pollution also caused more than 25,000 beach closings and advisory days in 2006, the most in 17 years, according to the report.
In 2006, more than half the states -- 32 -- had statewide fish consumption advisories in place because of toxic pollution, according to the report.
About 850 billion gallons of raw sewage is dumped into U.S. waterways each year, according to the report.
The Clean Water Act
Signed into law Oct. 18, 1972, the Clean Water Act set goals to have all U.S. waterways swimmable and fishable by 1983 and to eliminate all discharges of pollutants by 1985, according to information from Environment Texas. Under the law, facilities are called upon to report any improper discharges. Government regulators can then assess penalties, although in Texas they typically do not, according to a recent state auditor's report.
Read more
AUSTIN -- Texas led the nation in the number of facilities discharging pollution at levels exceeding federal clean water guidelines, according to a new report from an environmental watchdog group.
The Austin-based Environment Texas said that in 2005, 318 facilities in the state reported 1,340 incidents in which they discharged more pollution than permitted under the federal Clean Water Act. The group also reported that more than 53 percent of Texas' industrial and municipal facilities discharged more pollution in 2005 than permitted under the law.
"With so many facilities dumping so much pollution, no one should be surprised that more than half of Texas waterways are unsafe for swimming and fishing -- but we should be outraged," Environment Texas Citizen Outreach director Brad Hicks said in a statement.
Harris County was No. 1 among all U.S. counties for the most facilities that exceeded their Clean Water Act permits at least once, according to the report.
The report was released Thursday to commemorate the 35th anniversary next week of the Clean Water Act.
About the report
Using information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gathered under the federal Freedom of Information Act, Environment Texas reviewed the extent of discharges for all facilities that exceeded their Clean Water Act permits in 2005. The director of Environment Texas said 2005 was the last full year for which comprehensive data was available.
In Tarrant County
During the study period, the only Tarrant County entity to report pollution discharges that exceeded the allowable levels was the city of Azle. The report lists seven such discharges by the municipality. Azle utility manager Rick White said the discharges occurred at a wastewater plant at Ash Creek and were largely due to malfunctioning equipment. He said the equipment supplier corrected the problem.
"Everybody has problems but we haven't had any significant problem since then," he said.
Other findings
Nationally, more than 3,600 major facilities, or 57 percent, exceeded their Clean Water Act limits at least once in 2005. The facilities exceeded the limits a total of 24,400 times during that period, which means that many exceeded their permits more than once and for more than one pollutant, according to the report.
Texas is not among the 10 states with the highest percentage of major facilities that exceeded their limits at least once. Those states are Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Ohio, Connecticut, New York, North Dakota, California, and West Virginia.
Texas is among the 10 U.S. states with the most violations during that period. The others are Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida.
The report also noted that California, Pennsylvania and Ohio were the states with at least 100 incidents that were at least 500 percent above the permitted level.
Pollution problems
More than 20,000 bodies of waters in the United States are too polluted to meet basic quality standards, according to the EPA.
Water pollution also caused more than 25,000 beach closings and advisory days in 2006, the most in 17 years, according to the report.
In 2006, more than half the states -- 32 -- had statewide fish consumption advisories in place because of toxic pollution, according to the report.
About 850 billion gallons of raw sewage is dumped into U.S. waterways each year, according to the report.
The Clean Water Act
Signed into law Oct. 18, 1972, the Clean Water Act set goals to have all U.S. waterways swimmable and fishable by 1983 and to eliminate all discharges of pollutants by 1985, according to information from Environment Texas. Under the law, facilities are called upon to report any improper discharges. Government regulators can then assess penalties, although in Texas they typically do not, according to a recent state auditor's report.
Read more
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Letter to Mayor Leppert on endangerment to Dallas's Drinking Water by proposed FM2499
Dear Mr. Leppert:
I am writing this letter to bring to your attention a matter of some grave concern. Just this week, I contacted the Dallas Water Department to inquire about the extent of their knowledge and participation in matters pertaining to a major Dallas drinking water source. I foolishly presumed that the Water Department would be fully informed of activities that might potentially pollute this source. It came to my attention in 2003 that despite the events of 9/11, and the nation’s terrorist concerns, there was very little inter-agency communication on matters that could potentially threaten resources and facilities of our local Cities. I live in Highland Village, which is situated at the southern and western boundary of Lake Lewisville. This community has had an ongoing battle with regard to the proposed alignment of Section 4 of FM 2499, a 4 - 6 lane thoroughfare that Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot) plans to run through our 96 percent owner-occupied residential community. Members of our community contacted the City of Dallas at that time, to ask them about their participation in the selection process for the alignment for this road, since Alignment 3, (there were originally 10) through Highland Village, was the only easement that would take this roadway over Lake Lewisville. We assumed the City would be involved since Dallas owns the water rights. They were not! With the huge outcry at the Public Hearings and considerable media coverage at that time, we presumed Dallas would get involved, especially as TxDot went ahead and selected Alternative 3 over other less controversial and less expensive routes for this road. They apparently did not!
This particular alignment, through our unique and massively “hilly” neighborhoods, through wetlands and over the western boundary of Lake Lewisville is very controversial! It is the most disruptive and THE MOST EXPENSIVE of all options which were available. The environmental threat from this road is huge - to human and wildlife (Lake Lewisville already has a high MTBE content according to EPA reports). Yet it somehow ‘squeaked’ inside the NEPA guidelines and was ‘shoehorned’ under the radar, to fit the need to move this project along. Leadership of Copper Canyon – the neighboring community which was the site for several of the other alternatives, fought this roadway from the very beginning. Leadership of Highland Village did not! That is what is amounted to. Despite the huge citizen opposition, despite being elevated above grade (up to 15 ft. in places), and less than 10 feet from some homes; despite the necessity to build bridges over emergent wetlands along the western boundary of Lake Lewisville – and potential threat to this drinking water source, the project received an assessment of "no significant impact" to the surrounding community, in late 2005. No formal Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was ever done. The conditions for the lesser study were also less than ideal. No ground assessment was ever done for the emergent wetlands evaluation portion, and all areas of promised mitigation to the community (for what they were worth) cannot be fulfilled because the City of Highland Village does not have authority over this State highway. And yet apparently, through all this, the City of Dallas stayed out of this process.
TxDot is preparing to put this construction project out to bids next month. Highland Village families continue to fight the project and have recently been talking to an environmental attorney, to seek advice on how we should move forward at this time. We had hoped to stop the process before now, or at a minimum force TxDot to complete a proper Environmental Impact Study (EIS). This especially in light of the recent USC Medical study published earlier this year in Lancet, implicating automobile pollution as a major source of loss of lung function in children, and more recently the reports about breast cancer from the same source. This agency appears to be determined to push forward with this project however, even with their recent acknowledgement of a $290 million deficit in state funds. We are therefore trying to get as many people involved as possible, in asking the right questions, so that they might reconsider the repercussions of their choices. I called the Dallas Water Department about 11 days ago to discuss this matter, and was instructed that Jodi Puckett, the Director, was out of the office. Earlier this week I received a call from Rick Galceron(sp?) in Ms. Pucket’s stead. Mr. Galceron informed me that he was unaware of any participation or issues with regard to this or any other proposed highway crossing of Lake Lewisville. He told me he would make some calls to find out what he could, and then get back to me. I have heard no more to date, and therefore feel I should bring this matter to you Mr. Leppert, as the newly appointed Mayor of the City of Dallas. I felt you would wish to be informed of this and other matters of such importance. I realize I am a simple “lay-person” in this area, but I find the lack of apparent concern and cooperation in this matter to disturbing to the point of outrageous. We are after all talking about a potential threat to one of the City of Dallas’ largest sources of potable water. A lack of inter-agency co-operation regarding a project of this scale, which has the potential of putting massive amounts of toxins into that source, is absurd. Mistakes are made and accidents happen. That no cooperation is believed necessary is shocking! Whatever happened to the requirements for stepped up security on such resources? Given the recent concerns not that long ago following the spill at Lake Tawakoni, one would have thought there would be more involvement and monitoring of these matters. I have to wonder whether the citizens of Dallas are aware of how little oversight is being given to their drinking water source. I would appreciate hearing from you at you earliest convenience in response to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Susie Venable
Concerned Parent/Citizen/Homeowner/Taxpayer
of Highland Village, Texas
I am writing this letter to bring to your attention a matter of some grave concern. Just this week, I contacted the Dallas Water Department to inquire about the extent of their knowledge and participation in matters pertaining to a major Dallas drinking water source. I foolishly presumed that the Water Department would be fully informed of activities that might potentially pollute this source. It came to my attention in 2003 that despite the events of 9/11, and the nation’s terrorist concerns, there was very little inter-agency communication on matters that could potentially threaten resources and facilities of our local Cities. I live in Highland Village, which is situated at the southern and western boundary of Lake Lewisville. This community has had an ongoing battle with regard to the proposed alignment of Section 4 of FM 2499, a 4 - 6 lane thoroughfare that Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot) plans to run through our 96 percent owner-occupied residential community. Members of our community contacted the City of Dallas at that time, to ask them about their participation in the selection process for the alignment for this road, since Alignment 3, (there were originally 10) through Highland Village, was the only easement that would take this roadway over Lake Lewisville. We assumed the City would be involved since Dallas owns the water rights. They were not! With the huge outcry at the Public Hearings and considerable media coverage at that time, we presumed Dallas would get involved, especially as TxDot went ahead and selected Alternative 3 over other less controversial and less expensive routes for this road. They apparently did not!
This particular alignment, through our unique and massively “hilly” neighborhoods, through wetlands and over the western boundary of Lake Lewisville is very controversial! It is the most disruptive and THE MOST EXPENSIVE of all options which were available. The environmental threat from this road is huge - to human and wildlife (Lake Lewisville already has a high MTBE content according to EPA reports). Yet it somehow ‘squeaked’ inside the NEPA guidelines and was ‘shoehorned’ under the radar, to fit the need to move this project along. Leadership of Copper Canyon – the neighboring community which was the site for several of the other alternatives, fought this roadway from the very beginning. Leadership of Highland Village did not! That is what is amounted to. Despite the huge citizen opposition, despite being elevated above grade (up to 15 ft. in places), and less than 10 feet from some homes; despite the necessity to build bridges over emergent wetlands along the western boundary of Lake Lewisville – and potential threat to this drinking water source, the project received an assessment of "no significant impact" to the surrounding community, in late 2005. No formal Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was ever done. The conditions for the lesser study were also less than ideal. No ground assessment was ever done for the emergent wetlands evaluation portion, and all areas of promised mitigation to the community (for what they were worth) cannot be fulfilled because the City of Highland Village does not have authority over this State highway. And yet apparently, through all this, the City of Dallas stayed out of this process.
TxDot is preparing to put this construction project out to bids next month. Highland Village families continue to fight the project and have recently been talking to an environmental attorney, to seek advice on how we should move forward at this time. We had hoped to stop the process before now, or at a minimum force TxDot to complete a proper Environmental Impact Study (EIS). This especially in light of the recent USC Medical study published earlier this year in Lancet, implicating automobile pollution as a major source of loss of lung function in children, and more recently the reports about breast cancer from the same source. This agency appears to be determined to push forward with this project however, even with their recent acknowledgement of a $290 million deficit in state funds. We are therefore trying to get as many people involved as possible, in asking the right questions, so that they might reconsider the repercussions of their choices. I called the Dallas Water Department about 11 days ago to discuss this matter, and was instructed that Jodi Puckett, the Director, was out of the office. Earlier this week I received a call from Rick Galceron(sp?) in Ms. Pucket’s stead. Mr. Galceron informed me that he was unaware of any participation or issues with regard to this or any other proposed highway crossing of Lake Lewisville. He told me he would make some calls to find out what he could, and then get back to me. I have heard no more to date, and therefore feel I should bring this matter to you Mr. Leppert, as the newly appointed Mayor of the City of Dallas. I felt you would wish to be informed of this and other matters of such importance. I realize I am a simple “lay-person” in this area, but I find the lack of apparent concern and cooperation in this matter to disturbing to the point of outrageous. We are after all talking about a potential threat to one of the City of Dallas’ largest sources of potable water. A lack of inter-agency co-operation regarding a project of this scale, which has the potential of putting massive amounts of toxins into that source, is absurd. Mistakes are made and accidents happen. That no cooperation is believed necessary is shocking! Whatever happened to the requirements for stepped up security on such resources? Given the recent concerns not that long ago following the spill at Lake Tawakoni, one would have thought there would be more involvement and monitoring of these matters. I have to wonder whether the citizens of Dallas are aware of how little oversight is being given to their drinking water source. I would appreciate hearing from you at you earliest convenience in response to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Susie Venable
Concerned Parent/Citizen/Homeowner/Taxpayer
of Highland Village, Texas
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Jimmie Vaughan Live at Texas Capitol Texas Independence Day 2007
Jimmie Vaughan wrote this song especially for the Texas Independence Day Rally opposing the Trans Texas Corridor and Mandatory Animal ID.
Texas Legislators violate one vote rule
This U Tube Video shot on the floor of the Texas House shows legislators violating House Rules and voting more than once. If the rules had been followed, perhaps toll road legislation and eminent domain for private gain legislation may not have passed.
Craddick is not enforcing the Rules of the House. Members on both sides of the aisle violate them.
- Faith Chatham
City staffers accused of taking sides on Trinity toll road
By RUDOLPH BUSH, BRUCE TOMASO and DAVE LEVINTHAL - The Dallas Morning News - Saturday, September 29, 2007
Top Dallas city staff members appear to have a cozy relationship with leading advocates for the Trinity River toll road, a series of e-mails among them shows. The disclosure has infuriated toll road opponents and caused City Manager Mary Suhm to caution her top deputies about politicking on the job.
For instance, in a July 6 e-mail, Rebecca Dugger, director of the city office overseeing the Trinity project, encouraged toll road supporters to call a radio talk show to give a positive view of the project.
Twenty days later, toll road backer and former City Council member Craig Holcomb asked Ms. Dugger if she could assist him in making a presentation before the Oak Cliff Chamber of Commerce.
And in an Aug. 15 e-mail to Ms. Suhm, Ms. Dugger and other staff members, Mr. Holcomb felt free to take a swipe at council member Angela Hunt, the toll road's chief opponent.
The e-mail was intended to arrange a meeting between city staff and the nonprofit Trinity Trust organization and asked if the group could meet at the Original House of Pancakes. Mr. Holcomb liked the location "[f]or nostalgia's sake, to remember the days before AH," he wrote in reference to Ms. Hunt.
Mr. Holcomb said Friday that he had never asked the city staff to do anything inappropriate and that the staff never had.
He acknowledged being friends with Ms. Dugger and many others at City Hall, and he made no apologies for that.
Regarding his joke about Ms. Hunt, he said, "One council member out of 15 wants to derail the Trinity project, and I don't see anything wrong with being nostalgic for a time when that was not the case and we could all work together."
City staffers are prohibited from advocating for one side during an election, and Ms. Suhm said her staff has been careful to avoid taking a position on the Nov. 6 referendum on the toll road project.
But long-standing friendly relationships between some staff members and toll road proponents have at least led to the appearance that the city has gone out of its way to assist those who would see the referendum fail so the road can be built.
Former Dallas City Council member Donna Blumer, who opposes the toll road project, said she was shocked by the e-mails.
Ms. Hunt said that the e-mail exchanges "undermine any argument the city has that they're being neutral on this issue." But she does not plan to pursue the matter through legal or ethical channels.
Mayor Tom Leppert, who said he had not seen the e-mails in question, said the city staff should remain neutral and has tried to do so.
Voters will decide Nov. 6 whether a high-speed highway can be built inside the Trinity River levees. A yes vote prohibits such a highway. A no vote would allow the city's plans to go forward.
The Dallas Morning News obtained hundreds of e-mails originating at City Hall regarding the toll road project, using the state's open records law. The vast majority were between city staff and toll road proponents. Only a handful were from those who oppose the toll road and did not involve requests for information.
Defending the staff
Ms. Suhm broadly defended her staff's handling of what she said has become a delicate, even precarious, balancing act on the Trinity project.
City staffers are required to help the city realize a "Balanced Vision Plan," ordered by the City Council, that calls for the construction of a toll road between the Trinity levees downtown, Ms. Suhm said.
But they aren't permitted to advocate for or against a referendum that, if successful, would undermine that plan.
Further complicating matters is the fact that leading referendum opponents are City Hall insiders, from former council members and mayors to a former city manager.
As recently as Tuesday, Ms. Suhm cautioned her top deputies about how to handle requests for information about the Trinity project, she said.
As for Ms. Dugger's e-mails with Mr. Holcomb, Ms. Suhm acknowledged the two are personally close and said that led to an overly friendly tone in the e-mails between them.
She added that while she might have handled the matter of the radio talk show differently, she believes Ms. Dugger acted appropriately when she declined to go on the show.
Ms. Dugger also defended her correspondence.
Other e-mails
Ms. Suhm also was the recipient of friendly e-mails from toll road backers seeking help or information.
On July 5, she received a request from former City Manager Jan Hart Black, now the president of the Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce.
Ms. Suhm said Friday that the city regularly fulfills requests for presentations on the Trinity project. Ms. Hart Black also defended the request.
In a July 18 e-mail, toll road backer and former City Council member Donna Halstead asked Ms. Suhm to personally review a poll intended to gauge support for the Trinity River toll road plan.
Ms. Halstead said the request was one of many she has made of Ms. Suhm regarding a variety of topics.
"Mary and I have known each other for many years. I ask her and others at City Hall questions all the time," said Ms. Halstead, who heads the Dallas Citizens Council. "I'm very lucky that they feel comfortable giving me answers."
Ms. Suhm acknowledged receiving Ms. Halstead's e-mail regarding the poll. She said she reviewed the poll for factual errors.
"If the other side came and asked us questions or asked us to speak about [the project], we would," she said.
City staff members are permitted to answer factual questions from the public regarding city projects, but Ms. Hunt questioned Ms. Suhm's decision to review the poll.
Texas Ethics Commission attorney Tim Sorrells said e-mail traffic of this nature doesn't appear to fall under his office's purview.
City Attorney Tom Perkins, meanwhile, declined to comment on his office's involvement, if any, in such a matter. Mr. Perkins did note that "we have certainly discussed with staff the permissible parameters of what they should or shouldn't do in a campaign."
Mr. Leppert, meanwhile, said he wants to make sure there isn't any appearance of bias on the part of the city's staff.
Mr. Leppert, who has become the major voice of the toll road supporters, said that it doesn't help his cause to have the staff seen as tilting toward one side or the other.
THE RULES FOR CITY OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES
Read more in the Dallas Morning News
Top Dallas city staff members appear to have a cozy relationship with leading advocates for the Trinity River toll road, a series of e-mails among them shows. The disclosure has infuriated toll road opponents and caused City Manager Mary Suhm to caution her top deputies about politicking on the job.
For instance, in a July 6 e-mail, Rebecca Dugger, director of the city office overseeing the Trinity project, encouraged toll road supporters to call a radio talk show to give a positive view of the project.
"I am not going to call. Hope you can," Ms. Dugger wrote in response to a request that she call the show.
Twenty days later, toll road backer and former City Council member Craig Holcomb asked Ms. Dugger if she could assist him in making a presentation before the Oak Cliff Chamber of Commerce.
"I would LOVE to partner with you. ... Do you want me to attend as a backup/visual eye candy?" Ms. Dugger responded.
And in an Aug. 15 e-mail to Ms. Suhm, Ms. Dugger and other staff members, Mr. Holcomb felt free to take a swipe at council member Angela Hunt, the toll road's chief opponent.
The e-mail was intended to arrange a meeting between city staff and the nonprofit Trinity Trust organization and asked if the group could meet at the Original House of Pancakes. Mr. Holcomb liked the location "[f]or nostalgia's sake, to remember the days before AH," he wrote in reference to Ms. Hunt.
Mr. Holcomb said Friday that he had never asked the city staff to do anything inappropriate and that the staff never had.
He acknowledged being friends with Ms. Dugger and many others at City Hall, and he made no apologies for that.
"If you work with somebody for five years on a project, you get to be friends," he said. "It's deeply troubling to me that because you share a joke with someone in an e-mail, that anyone would question your integrity."
Regarding his joke about Ms. Hunt, he said, "One council member out of 15 wants to derail the Trinity project, and I don't see anything wrong with being nostalgic for a time when that was not the case and we could all work together."
City staffers are prohibited from advocating for one side during an election, and Ms. Suhm said her staff has been careful to avoid taking a position on the Nov. 6 referendum on the toll road project.
But long-standing friendly relationships between some staff members and toll road proponents have at least led to the appearance that the city has gone out of its way to assist those who would see the referendum fail so the road can be built.
Former Dallas City Council member Donna Blumer, who opposes the toll road project, said she was shocked by the e-mails.
"They're pretty damning ... city staff is collaborating with the Vote No! campaign," she said.
Ms. Hunt said that the e-mail exchanges "undermine any argument the city has that they're being neutral on this issue." But she does not plan to pursue the matter through legal or ethical channels.
"I'm focused on November 6th, getting our referendum passed and making sure we get the park we want and not a giant toll road in a floodway. Going forward with it doesn't win this election," Ms. Hunt said.
Mayor Tom Leppert, who said he had not seen the e-mails in question, said the city staff should remain neutral and has tried to do so.
Voters will decide Nov. 6 whether a high-speed highway can be built inside the Trinity River levees. A yes vote prohibits such a highway. A no vote would allow the city's plans to go forward.
The Dallas Morning News obtained hundreds of e-mails originating at City Hall regarding the toll road project, using the state's open records law. The vast majority were between city staff and toll road proponents. Only a handful were from those who oppose the toll road and did not involve requests for information.
Defending the staff
Ms. Suhm broadly defended her staff's handling of what she said has become a delicate, even precarious, balancing act on the Trinity project.
City staffers are required to help the city realize a "Balanced Vision Plan," ordered by the City Council, that calls for the construction of a toll road between the Trinity levees downtown, Ms. Suhm said.
But they aren't permitted to advocate for or against a referendum that, if successful, would undermine that plan.
Further complicating matters is the fact that leading referendum opponents are City Hall insiders, from former council members and mayors to a former city manager.
"It's a hard line. We talk about it all the time," Ms. Suhm said.
As recently as Tuesday, Ms. Suhm cautioned her top deputies about how to handle requests for information about the Trinity project, she said.
"I have been completely wound up about this since the start. I have been a major league nag," she said.
As for Ms. Dugger's e-mails with Mr. Holcomb, Ms. Suhm acknowledged the two are personally close and said that led to an overly friendly tone in the e-mails between them.
"I talked to her. I said, 'I know y'all are friends, but you need to keep the friendship part out of the business part,' " Ms. Suhm said.
She added that while she might have handled the matter of the radio talk show differently, she believes Ms. Dugger acted appropriately when she declined to go on the show.
"I would be concerned if she had called [in]," Ms. Suhm said.
Ms. Dugger also defended her correspondence.
"My basic concern is for the facts to be told. If I feel like the facts are not being told, and if others have the facts, then they should get those facts out there," she said.
Other e-mails
Ms. Suhm also was the recipient of friendly e-mails from toll road backers seeking help or information.
On July 5, she received a request from former City Manager Jan Hart Black, now the president of the Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce.
"We will need a presentation from city staff on the issues and consequences of a successful election," Ms. Hart Black wrote.
Ms. Suhm said Friday that the city regularly fulfills requests for presentations on the Trinity project. Ms. Hart Black also defended the request.
"The city has a responsibility to respond and to provide us information and answer our questions. We request information from City Hall on many issues," Ms. Hart Black said in a prepared statement. "I am sorry that Angela Hunt is attacking city staff for simply doing their job."
In a July 18 e-mail, toll road backer and former City Council member Donna Halstead asked Ms. Suhm to personally review a poll intended to gauge support for the Trinity River toll road plan.
Ms. Halstead said the request was one of many she has made of Ms. Suhm regarding a variety of topics.
"Mary and I have known each other for many years. I ask her and others at City Hall questions all the time," said Ms. Halstead, who heads the Dallas Citizens Council. "I'm very lucky that they feel comfortable giving me answers."
Ms. Suhm acknowledged receiving Ms. Halstead's e-mail regarding the poll. She said she reviewed the poll for factual errors.
"If the other side came and asked us questions or asked us to speak about [the project], we would," she said.
City staff members are permitted to answer factual questions from the public regarding city projects, but Ms. Hunt questioned Ms. Suhm's decision to review the poll.
"I find it unusual that the city manager of the ninth-largest city in America is doing fact-checking on a partisan poll. ... What's she doing? Spell-checking?" Ms. Hunt said.
Texas Ethics Commission attorney Tim Sorrells said e-mail traffic of this nature doesn't appear to fall under his office's purview.
City Attorney Tom Perkins, meanwhile, declined to comment on his office's involvement, if any, in such a matter. Mr. Perkins did note that "we have certainly discussed with staff the permissible parameters of what they should or shouldn't do in a campaign."
Mr. Leppert, meanwhile, said he wants to make sure there isn't any appearance of bias on the part of the city's staff.
"My view is everybody is doing their best to play this thing as neutral and down the middle as they can," he said.
Mr. Leppert, who has become the major voice of the toll road supporters, said that it doesn't help his cause to have the staff seen as tilting toward one side or the other.
"I don't want it to be an issue," he said.
THE RULES FOR CITY OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES
Dallas Administrative Assistant City Attorney Jesus Toscano sent a four-page memorandum to the City Council, City Manager Mary Suhm and her assistant city managers in August explaining what actions city officials and employees may take during the Trinity campaign. Mr. Toscano wrote that employees:Dave Levinthal
• May not use city facilities, personnel, equipment or supplies in support of or in opposition to the measure, except to the extent and in accordance with the terms that those city resources are generally available to the public.
• May be involved in political activities outside of work that support or oppose the measure, but cannot use their city titles.
• May participate in fundraising activities supporting or opposing the measure in his/her individual capacity, but not on city time.
• May not use the prestige of their position with the city on behalf of a political committee. This also applies to a city measure, if political committees have been formed to support or oppose the measure.
• May make personal contributions to political committees supporting or opposing the measure.
• May place campaign signs in their yards and on the premises of their homes supporting or opposing the measure.
• May display campaign bumper stickers supporting or opposing the measure on their personal vehicles (but not on any city vehicles under the employee's control).
• Should not push any subordinate employee to participate in an election campaign, contribute to a political committee, engage in any other political activity or refrain from engaging in any lawful political activity. A general statement merely encouraging another person to vote does not violate this provision.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News
Friday, September 28, 2007
HV Parents Group refutes TxDOTs conclusions
By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - September 30, 2007
Citizens in Highland Village (Denton County) have consistently opposed the current route selected for section 4 of FM2499. FM2499 is to connect with I-35 near SH121.
Orginally it was to be a two-lane oil top road. Now it is planned as a 4 lane road with plans to expand it to 6 lanes. Much of it will be elevated 11 feet above playgrounds and residents. Over 1000 children in Highland Village will live within 1500 feet of this road. It is anticipated to have traffic counts exceeding 45M cars daily which is the threshold which scientific studies find results in irreserviable lung function in children. Schools, playgrounds, recreation areas, and day cares are located within 1500 feet of this proposed route.
It will cut through residential neighborhood, federal wetlands, recreation areas. The current route is the only one which cuts across three tributaries of Lake Lewisville. Lake Lewisville is the drinking water source for Dallas and Denton counties. The secion of the lake where these bridges will be constructed is the part of the lake which already registers excessively high MTBE. MTBE is a fuel additive which cannot be filtered out of water with currently available technology. Because of Federal Legislation sponored by Joe Barton, manufacturers of MTBE are protected from envionmental liability.
The current route selected is the most costly route. The budget for this project was recently doubled! The most environmentally dangerous route requires doubling the budget because of the necessity of constructing costly bridges over Lake Lewisville's fragile ecosystem.
John Mullens, a resident of Highland Village who has joined with his neighbors (Highland Village Parents Group) in opposing this route responded to TxDOT's attorney.
Citizens in Highland Village (Denton County) have consistently opposed the current route selected for section 4 of FM2499. FM2499 is to connect with I-35 near SH121.
Orginally it was to be a two-lane oil top road. Now it is planned as a 4 lane road with plans to expand it to 6 lanes. Much of it will be elevated 11 feet above playgrounds and residents. Over 1000 children in Highland Village will live within 1500 feet of this road. It is anticipated to have traffic counts exceeding 45M cars daily which is the threshold which scientific studies find results in irreserviable lung function in children. Schools, playgrounds, recreation areas, and day cares are located within 1500 feet of this proposed route.
It will cut through residential neighborhood, federal wetlands, recreation areas. The current route is the only one which cuts across three tributaries of Lake Lewisville. Lake Lewisville is the drinking water source for Dallas and Denton counties. The secion of the lake where these bridges will be constructed is the part of the lake which already registers excessively high MTBE. MTBE is a fuel additive which cannot be filtered out of water with currently available technology. Because of Federal Legislation sponored by Joe Barton, manufacturers of MTBE are protected from envionmental liability.
The current route selected is the most costly route. The budget for this project was recently doubled! The most environmentally dangerous route requires doubling the budget because of the necessity of constructing costly bridges over Lake Lewisville's fragile ecosystem.
John Mullens, a resident of Highland Village who has joined with his neighbors (Highland Village Parents Group) in opposing this route responded to TxDOT's attorney.
Ms. Noble (Texas Dept. of Transportation),
Thank you for your response on September 21 (attached) to the concerns of the Highland Village Parent Group. Although your response was not timely, we do appreciate receiving it. As you probably expect, we do not agree with the conclusions of your letter and have commented below.
First, however, we would like to comment on the story in today's front page of the Dallas Morning News describing the financial woes suffered by TXDOT.
TXDOT can save $47 million by permanently canceling the section 4 portion of FM 2499 (probably more as costs continue to escalate). The majority of citizens in Highland Village do not want this highway, and are very vocal about it. At the public hearings there were 3015 written opposing comments submitted, and 1186 opposing signatures on petitions (all voters ).
Only a few politicians want this highway and only God knows why as we have provided them with the USC/Lancet Study (as well as supporting studies/reports), so they are fully aware of the significant lung damage our children will suffer.
We ask TXDOT to direct these scarce funds to more worthy projects where the citizens actually need and desire the transportation improvements, as opposed to wasting the money to satisfy a few. At the very minimum, a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS) should be performed to insure the safety of our children. Most people with knowledge of the circumstances know that a full EIS will result in the project being terminated or re-routed.
Following are our comments about your response (attached PDF file) to our recent e-mails:
1) You state "The Lancet Study is one of several recent studies that come to the conclusion that there are potential health effects from living within close proximity of a roadway. However, the results of the Lancet Study are specific to the study conditions."
We believe you are over-complicating this issue. There are highways in the USC/Lancet Study in California with traffic similar to FM 2499. The vehicles are the same, and emissions actually are significantly reduced in California per their emissions laws. So, you have similar highways with similar vehicles, obviously you would have similar results: average 10%, irreversible, lung damage for children who grow up within 1500 feet of a major road. The study conditions all wash out, we are not that different in Texas than California (these are two of the largest states in the U.S.), and actually we should even increase the 10% lung damage expected in Texas to account for the more dangerous emissions levels (CA has the strictest emissions laws in the country).
2) You state that "The Clean Air Act requires EPA to 'establish air quality criteria for pollutants that accurately reflects the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare…'". The latest scientific knowledge is the USC/Lancet Study, as well as numerous other studies that validate the common sense that a highway 25 feet next to a house is harmful to children.
Why can't TXDOT be a leader in environmental protection instead of following the EPA who is obviously not able to protect our kids? We ask you to use your own judgment in this matter.
3) You say that "TXDOT takes human health very seriously". We do not believe this when you will not even suggest a full EIS to protect our children from the conclusive results from the USC/Lancet and numerous other studies. To the taxpayers it appears that TXDOT does not take human health seriously at all.
3) You describe the complicated process that TXDOT goes through in conjunction with the EPA to determine effects on human health, but admit these processes are not effective. We taxpayers are not concerned with the reasons why you cannot protect our children, we are only interested in results. We are also not interested in EPA guidelines. If EPA guidelines allow inflicting lung damage on children, then those guidelines must be fixed and not followed. The "I am only following orders" rationale is not acceptable.
4) You discuss a loophole that allows TXDOT to ignore the published policy in your environmental manual that typically requires an EIS in cases of highways of four or more lanes in a new location. We find it completely unacceptable that you would not apply your "normal" standards to a case as serious as this where children's health is at risk.
5) The City of Flower Mound website clearly describes the intention to convert section 4 to six lanes. It states that "Sufficient right-of-way would be acquired to allow for its eventual expansion to an ultimate six-lane divided urban arterial." Here is the link http://www.flower-mound.com/2499_information/index.php
6) We would like the name of the consulting firm that you have hired so we may verify their independence.
In summary, we hope that this consulting firm and the FHWA will reach the correct conclusion that their most important role is to protect our children, and therefore recommend that a full and thorough EIS be prepared prior to any construction taking place. We still are hopeful that TXDOT will step up and take a leadership role in protecting our children.
Regards,
John Mullen
Highland Village Parent Group
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Obscenity
By Faith Chatham - DFW RCC - Sept. 27, 2007
TxDOT and Rick Perry say there's no way to build and maintain roads and bridges in Texas without tolls yet TxDOT is spending billions of dollars on lobbying and ad campaigns. TxDOT "mislabeled" millions of dollars of PR spending as engineering.
The Governor's manion needs renovating. The State is spending $9,900.00 a month to rent Rick Perry a mansion. Taxpayers are footing the $1000.00 pet deposit for Perry's dog.
The real danger isn't the probablity of the dog damaging the mansion. It's the reality that this Governor and those he has in charge of policy and spending are "doing it to the people of Texas!"
Conservative? Definitely not.
Prudent? Absolutely not.
Legal? Probaby since the Governor's veto and threat of veto helps determine what remains legal or becomes legal!
Moral? That's for you to determine.
Personally, I see it as absolutely obscene that it was proposed, let alone approved to spend nearly $120,000 a year rent for a residence for ANY ELECTED official.
Who's the landlord? Perhaps we should follow the money and examine the relationships between those who located and approved this property and those who contributed to the decision makers. There may be no conflict of interest. Again there may be.
Money to assist Texans on the Gulf Coast whose homes and businesses were damaged by Hurricane Rita remains undisbursed. It is taking YEARS for Gov. Perry's administration and FEMA to distribute the money in Texas! (The excuse cited is they were trying to be sure that there was not graft and corruption and fraud! Perhaps we should put the people who have been so careful to insure that there is no "fraud" in the Rita distributions in charge of spending in the Governor's office and for administration costs by TxDOT.
Ironically, as time for TxDOT to be reviewed by the Sunset Review Committee nears, some rumblings are circulating about whether Texas should retire the Sunset Review committee!
The real question is whether the Sunset Review Committee will have the integrity to honestly assess corruption, mismanagement, and misappropriation of taxpayers funds and TxDot's failure to deliver necessary services.
TxDOT and Rick Perry say there's no way to build and maintain roads and bridges in Texas without tolls yet TxDOT is spending billions of dollars on lobbying and ad campaigns. TxDOT "mislabeled" millions of dollars of PR spending as engineering.
The Governor's manion needs renovating. The State is spending $9,900.00 a month to rent Rick Perry a mansion. Taxpayers are footing the $1000.00 pet deposit for Perry's dog.
The real danger isn't the probablity of the dog damaging the mansion. It's the reality that this Governor and those he has in charge of policy and spending are "doing it to the people of Texas!"
Conservative? Definitely not.
Prudent? Absolutely not.
Legal? Probaby since the Governor's veto and threat of veto helps determine what remains legal or becomes legal!
Moral? That's for you to determine.
Personally, I see it as absolutely obscene that it was proposed, let alone approved to spend nearly $120,000 a year rent for a residence for ANY ELECTED official.
Who's the landlord? Perhaps we should follow the money and examine the relationships between those who located and approved this property and those who contributed to the decision makers. There may be no conflict of interest. Again there may be.
Money to assist Texans on the Gulf Coast whose homes and businesses were damaged by Hurricane Rita remains undisbursed. It is taking YEARS for Gov. Perry's administration and FEMA to distribute the money in Texas! (The excuse cited is they were trying to be sure that there was not graft and corruption and fraud! Perhaps we should put the people who have been so careful to insure that there is no "fraud" in the Rita distributions in charge of spending in the Governor's office and for administration costs by TxDOT.
Ironically, as time for TxDOT to be reviewed by the Sunset Review Committee nears, some rumblings are circulating about whether Texas should retire the Sunset Review committee!
The real question is whether the Sunset Review Committee will have the integrity to honestly assess corruption, mismanagement, and misappropriation of taxpayers funds and TxDot's failure to deliver necessary services.
DA Ronnie Earle says he'll try DeLay on other charges
By Janet Elliott - San Antonio Express News Austin Bureau - Sept. 26, 2007
AUSTIN — Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said Wednesday that his office is ready to go to trial on remaining charges against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay after the state's highest criminal court upheld its earlier dismissal of a separate charge.
"We're preparing for trial," said Earle.
But Houston attorney Dick DeGuerin, who represents DeLay, said he doesn't expect any trial until another Texas appeals court rules on a case involving accused co-conspirators John Colyandro and Jim Ellis.
DeGuerin said Colyandro and Ellis' case, which was argued to a panel of Austin's Third Court of Appeals more than a year ago, "has to do with the balance of the case" against DeLay.
DeLay is not directly involved in the case pending at the Austin appeals court.
The Court of Criminal Appeals Wednesday rejected Earle's motion for a rehearing on its June dismissal of a charge that DeLay conspired to violate state election laws in 2002. The court held that such a charge wasn't made a crime until 2003.
"District Attorney Earle's decision to pursue lengthy, frivolous appeals in this matter purposefully denied Tom DeLay his day in court in a timely fashion," said DeGuerin.
DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro are accused of conspiring to funnel illegal corporate campaign contributions to Republican legislative candidates the year the GOP captured its first majority of the House in modern times. A Republican majority pushed through a controversial congressional redistricting plan sought by DeLay.
DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land, resigned from Congress last year and is working as a consultant in Washington, D.C.
Colyandro and Ellis, former political associates of DeLay, are fighting the money laundering and conspiracy to launder money indictments.
Lawyers for the two argued that the state's money-laundering statute in 2002 did not include transactions involving a personal or business check. The Legislature in 2005 expanded the definition of "funds" to include checks and money orders.
Read more in the San Antonio Express News
AUSTIN — Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said Wednesday that his office is ready to go to trial on remaining charges against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay after the state's highest criminal court upheld its earlier dismissal of a separate charge.
"We're preparing for trial," said Earle.
But Houston attorney Dick DeGuerin, who represents DeLay, said he doesn't expect any trial until another Texas appeals court rules on a case involving accused co-conspirators John Colyandro and Jim Ellis.
DeGuerin said Colyandro and Ellis' case, which was argued to a panel of Austin's Third Court of Appeals more than a year ago, "has to do with the balance of the case" against DeLay.
DeLay is not directly involved in the case pending at the Austin appeals court.
The Court of Criminal Appeals Wednesday rejected Earle's motion for a rehearing on its June dismissal of a charge that DeLay conspired to violate state election laws in 2002. The court held that such a charge wasn't made a crime until 2003.
"District Attorney Earle's decision to pursue lengthy, frivolous appeals in this matter purposefully denied Tom DeLay his day in court in a timely fashion," said DeGuerin.
DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro are accused of conspiring to funnel illegal corporate campaign contributions to Republican legislative candidates the year the GOP captured its first majority of the House in modern times. A Republican majority pushed through a controversial congressional redistricting plan sought by DeLay.
DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land, resigned from Congress last year and is working as a consultant in Washington, D.C.
Colyandro and Ellis, former political associates of DeLay, are fighting the money laundering and conspiracy to launder money indictments.
Lawyers for the two argued that the state's money-laundering statute in 2002 did not include transactions involving a personal or business check. The Legislature in 2005 expanded the definition of "funds" to include checks and money orders.
Read more in the San Antonio Express News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
