DFWRCC urges Denton County Voters to support Hugh Coleman

By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Thursday, Feb. 21, 2008

Hugh Coleman (R) who is challenging Cynthia White (R) for Denton County Commissioner Pct 1 in the Republican Primary. In the General Election either White or Coleman will face Democratic candidate Phyllis Wolper, who is unopposed in the Democratic Primary.

Cynthia White, with Wendy Davis, led the NCTCOG RTC in developing a 2030 plan for the region calling for 675 additional miles of tolled roads or additional tolled HOV lanes in the DFW region by the year 2030. At the RTC's vote for awarding the contract for SH121 to either Cintra or NTTA, Cynthia Whilte and Wendy Davis both gave very long, pleading speeches, with tears in their eyes almost to the point of sobbing, begging members to vote for Cintra "because if we do not accept the Cintra bid, no investors will ever come to the Dallas Fort Worth area ever again."

Ms. White is a member of the Board of Directors of NASCO CORRIDOR GROUP which lobbied to get legislation passed to enable construction of the Trans Texas Corridor.


I asked Hugh Coleman specifically about his position on toll roads. He said: "I absolutely opposes tolling existing roads -- like SH121. We, the taxpayers, have already paid for it and should not be taxed again."

"Toll roads should be only as a last resort." He favors the old model --- where roads were constructed as toll roads only when other resources were not available for construction cost -- similar to the I-30 (Dallas Fort Worth Turnpike). The old model is frequently described as 'building the best road you can for the least money, maintaining it as efficiently as you can, keeping the tolls as low as possible and retiring the debt as fast as you can. When enough users had paid tolls to retire the debt, the road becomes non-tolled public road.'

Hugh Coleman does not favor tolling a road to raise revenue to use on other projects. Ms. White, a member of NASCO CORRIDOR GROUP, and former President of the NCTCOG Regional Transportation Commission, favors tolling existing highways, utilizing private partners who profit from investing their capital in the public infrastructure projects, and utilizing revenue from one project to create a revenue stream to fund other transportation projects. Under Ms. White's leadership the RTC has approved a toll rate structure which charges users higher tolls than are necessary to maintain the roads and retire the debts.

In the Republican Primary, DFW Regional Concerned Citizens urges Denton County Republican Voters to support Hugh Coleman.

See Denton Record-Chronicle Article.

Resolutions for March 4th Precinct Conventions

By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - Feb. 18, 2008

DFW Regional Concerned Citizens concurrs with TURF that these resolutions should be passed by precinct conventions across Texas on March 4th. Please print them out and take them to your Party's Precinct Caucus election day at 7:15 p.m. Present them at the Precinct Convention and urge passage of these resolutions.


By Terri Hall - TURF - Feb. 18, 2008

PLAN TO GO TO YOUR PRECINCT CONVENTION WHEN THE POLLS CLOSE
Resolutions to bring to precinct convention / caucuses that convene at your precinct immediately after the polls close on March 4:

- Eminent Domain -

RESOLUTION
Against the eminent domain abuse for toll roads

Whereas, private Texas land can be taken through eminent domain for roadways; and

Whereas, the Texas Transportation Commission, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Turnpike Authority, and Regional Mobility Authorities in
the State of Texas have proposed and signed Comprehensive Development
Agreements (CDAs), also known as public-private partnerships, that would allow
land taken through eminent domain to be leased by private companies including
foreign consortiums/entities, for private and/or commercial gain; and

Whereas, the existing Texas eminent domain law has so many loopholes andexceptions that any new or existing public roadway and road right of way canbecome part of a public-private partnership (CDA) leased and operated by
private companies, including foreign consortiums/entities, for private and/or
commercial gain;

Now, therefore, be it:
Resolved, that we urge the Legislature to close any loopholes in our
eminent domain laws that allows ANY government agency to take our private land for toll roads to be operated, leased, or managed by private companies, including foreign companies, for profit; and further be it

Resolved, that the laws of the State of Texas should be amended to, without exception, prohibit the use of any portion of any new or existing, publicly-owned roadway facility or right of way to be operated, leased, or managed by private
companies, including foreign companies, for profit.

Adopted this ____day of _______, 20_ _ , at the Precinct Convention of Precinct

#_______,_ ____________ County of the__________________Party of Texas.

________________________________________
Name of Officer

________________________________________
Signature




- Tolling Existing Roads -


RESOLUTION
Against the Tolling of Existing Roadways in Texas

Whereas, we have already paid for our public roads and public road rights of way through the various local, State and federal taxes spent on road construction and maintenance; and

Whereas, the Texas Transportation Commission, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Turnpike Authority, and Regional Mobility Authorities in
the State of Texas have proposed the conversion of portions of existing road
facilities and/or rights of way into tolled road facilities and rights-of-way; and
Whereas, existing Texas law has so many loopholes and exceptions that any existing public roadway and road right of way can be tolled without a vote of the citizens of the county in which the facility or right of way is located; and

Whereas, the conversion of any portion of an existing public road or road right of way into a tolled roadway constitutes the double taxation of the Citizens of the State of Texas;

Now, therefore, be it:
Resolved, that we oppose the tolling of any portion of any existing, publicly owned roadway facility or right of way; and further be it

Resolved, that the laws of the State of Texas should be amended to, without exception, prohibit the use of any portion of any existing, publicly-owned roadway facility or right of way as part of a tolled roadway facility and/or tolled right of way without the majority vote of the citizens in the county in which the existing public roadway facility or right of way is located; and further be it
Resolved, that this measure be applied immediately to ANY and ALL roadways not currently open to traffic as a toll road to prevent any proposed conversions from occurring without such a vote of the residents of the affected county.

Adopted this ____day of _______, 20_, at the Precinct Convention of Precinct

#_______,_____________County of the__________________Party of Texas.

________________________________________
Name of Officer

________________________________________
Signature

________________________________________________________________




- Market-based tolling - download resolution


RESOLUTION
Repeal Market-Based Tolling

Whereas, market-based tolls determine the highest possible toll “the market can bear;” and

Whereas, market-based tolls do not determine the toll rate based on the actual cost of construction, maintenance, and debt retirement but rather on how much profit the government can make off a given roadway; and

Whereas, this method of tolling allows the government to siphon money from motorists on one road segment to pay for other road segments;

Whereas, this method of tolling essentially applies the same problematic provisions as private equity toll roads (that are currently under a moratorium in Texas) to government toll roads by having private companies determine how much money the government can make off a roadway as if a private firm were
tolling the road;

Whereas, this method of tolling is to maximize revenue and gouge motorists with unnecessarily high toll taxation rather than about providing transportation;

Now, therefore, be it:
Resolved, that we oppose market-based tolling; and further be it
Resolved, that the laws of the State of Texas should be amended to, without exception, prohibit the use of “market valuation” and any form of market-based
tolls; and further be it

Resolved, that this measure be applied immediately to all roads where bonds have not already been sold.

Adopted this ____day of _______, 20_ _ , at the Precinct Convention of Precinct

_______,_ ____________ County of the__________________Party of Texas.

________________________________________


Name of Officer________________________________________
Signature




- Privately-controlled toll roads -


RESOLUTION
Against the Ownership, Leasing, Operation, and Management of
Public Facilities by Private Entities

Whereas, the public facilities owned by the agencies and units of government of the State of Texas are owned, in fact, by the citizens of Texas; and

Whereas, proposals have been made to turn over the ownership, leasing, operation and/or management of existing and future public facilities in Texas to agencies, companies and/or private consortiums which are lead and primarily owned by private entities; and

Whereas, we believe that the collective public and private resources exist within the United States of America to safely, securely and efficiently own, operate and manage the public facilities owned by the citizens of the State of Texas; and

Whereas, we see no need for private firms and governments to profit from the public facilities owned by the citizens of Texas; and

Whereas, turning over for lease or ownership, the operation or management of public facilities to privately-controlled organizations represents an unnecessary financial and security risk to the citizens of the State of Texas;

Now, therefore, be it:
Resolved, that we oppose any contract between any agency or unit of government of the State of Texas and any private company or government or any private consortium including foreign firms; and further be it Resolved, that the laws of the State of Texas should be amended to, without exception, to prohibit agencies and units of government of the State of Texas from entering into any contract with any private company or government or any private consortium including foreign firms for the purposes of transferring the ownership, leasing, operation and/or management of any Texas public facility;

and further be it
Resolved, that this measure be applied immediately to prevent any such contracts under consideration from being executed and to cancel any such existing contracts.

Adopted this ____day of _______, 20_ ____ , at the Precinct Convention of Precinct

#_______,_ ______________ County of

the__________________Party of Texas.

____________________
Name of Officer

________________________________________
Signature

Atmos spares few expenses, and ratepayers pick up the tab

By R.A. DYER - Fort Worth Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Mon, Feb. 18, 2008

AUSTIN -- Even as Atmos Energy was removing luxurious hotel stays and limousine rides from a natural gas rate case last year, its attorneys and consultants litigating the issue were running up more bills at fancy hotels and spending more than $100 for restaurant meals, according to documents obtained by the Star-Telegram.

North Texas customers of the gas utility will have to foot the bills -- plus about $1.7 million more in questionable expenditures -- because the three members of the Texas Railroad Commission gave them their approval last week.
Among the questionable charges are more than $16,400 in bills at expensive hotels, more than $3,000 for meals at pricey restaurants, and mileage reimbursements by at least one Atmos official that is almost double the federal standard.

"As it now stands ... the parties have not established the reasonableness of certain expenses included in the reimbursement requests," an agency hearings examiner says in a Feb. 5 report.

All the charges were accrued by attorneys and regulatory experts involved in a 2007 Atmos rate case. Most of the controversial costs were charged by the North Texas utility, although one of the cities opposing Atmos also failed to sufficiently document some expensive consultant charges, according to the report.

In the 2007 case, Atmos tried to charge its ratepayers for the cost of hotel stays of over $900 per night, expensive cases of wine, extravagant meals and limousine service. The utility removed those expenditures after they were reported by the Star-Telegram.

The cost of litigation

By state law, expenses associated with litigating rate cases -- whether those expenses are incurred by utility attorneys, or by attorneys representing ratepayer interests -- typically get passed onto customer bills. The controversial charges cited in the expert's report were included in a compromise settlement on legal costs from last year's case, and which was approved Tuesday by the three members of the Railroad Commission.

But commission Chairman Michael Williams stressed that the agency expert did not find that any of the legal bills were definitively out of bounds -- only that some could bear more scrutiny.
Williams also noted that the agency's expert recommended approval of the legal expenditures because further scrutiny would only drive up costs more.

"What the hearing examiner has to say is that, on first blush, these items could raise concern -- however, he's also recommending approval," Williams said. "This [settlement] is in the best interest of cities. There is an argument that we could have thrown it out, and forced them to [have a trial to prove their expenses] -- but that would not have served the ratepayers."

What are some of expenditures raising concern? According to the findings from the hearings examiner:

Atmos attorneys and consultants submitted $16,410.94 in hotel charges that could be considered excessive. Although the examiner's report did not break down the calculation, it said charges above $172.50 per night -- that is, $150 plus tax -- could be considered a luxury. "Other parties had no trouble staying at motels that were under $150 per night on most occasions," the examiner wrote, adding, "The State of Texas limits its motel travel expense to a maximum reimbursed rate of $85 per night, plus tax."

The Feb. 5 report identified $3,143.75 in questionable Atmos meal expenses. A "review of the invoices of Atmos Mid-Texas for meals from consultants' shows 88 occurrences of meals in excess of $100," the hearings examiner said.

The hearings examiner cited $3,888 in questionable mileage expenses by Atmos and noted that one of the utility's consultants billed for mileage reimbursement of 85 cents per mile. "There is nothing in the record to support the reasonableness of this amount," the examiner said, adding that the Internal Revenue Service considers 44.5 cents per mile a reasonable allowance for reimbursement.

More than $365,000 in charges associated with a technical billing issue raised may have been unwarranted because an expert witness for the utility was found to be unfamiliar with the company's billing practices.

Atmos attorneys have said the company can defend each expenditure. In a statement, the utility noted that all parties in the rate case agreed to the legal costs.

"This cooperative and collaborative approach to negotiation and compromise has allowed the parties in this proceeding to avoid a protracted legal battle that would have increased costs and expenses exponentially," the company said

.

The hearings examiner also identified $186,750 in consultant charges from Dallas that lacked sufficient backup documentation. Norman Gordon, an attorney representing Dallas in the rate case, said the municipality could have easily provided the documentation had it become necessary.

$9.7 million in legal bills

In total, attorneys for Atmos and various city groups and others opposing the company ran up about $9.7 million in legal bills in the rate case. Of those overall legal costs, Atmos attorneys and legal consultants will bill ratepayers for about $6.6 million, and various city groups and others opposing Atmos will bill for $3.1 million.

Atmos has sought to increase rates in that case by about $56.9 million annually. City attorneys had sought to lower rates by about $37 million. The Texas Railroad Commission ultimately awarded a $4.8 million increase and a one-time refund of $2.2 million to customers.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Texas House Elections Committee Public Hearing: Examines lobbyist disclosure and use of state e-mail for political communications

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTIONS COMMITTEE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

TIME & DATE: 1:00 PM, Monday, February 25, 2008

PLACE: E2.028

CHAIR: Rep. Leo Berman


The committee will hear invited testimony on the following charges:


Study the exemption in the Texas lobby contingent fee ban, which currently permits contingent fees and does not require lobby registration, for influenceing the purchasing of goods or servisces by a state agency.

Consider whether this exemption should be amended or repealed.

Research the current Texas law prohibiting the use of public resources
for political advertising, and determine whether the law needs to be amended to clarify that publicly funded e-mail systems may not be used for political communications.

Rental Car Agreements charge up to $100.00 for a $1.00 toll on NTTA

TxDOT Trans Texas Corridor TTC69 Townhall Meeting Beeville - Hank Gilbert

Linda Stall discusses TxDOT's view of "Highest and best use of land" and pass along cost to the taxpayer. Linda tells TxDOT that hundreds of people have been in that hall tonight who are satisfied with the current best use of the land:





Part II - TxDOT discusses eminent domain and Quick Take Process with Hank Gilbert:


Trey Duhon discusses transportation funding with TxDOT officials:


Martha Estes reads poem on Mary Peters:


800PACK HALL IN HEMPSTEAD - WALLER COUNTY OPPOSING TTC-69:

North American Union and Multi-Modal Corridors

Tx RR Commission Candidate - Dale Henry: Protecting state's water a priority

By RANDY ROSS - Longview News-Journal - Friday, February 08, 2008

Protecting the waters of Texas is a priority for Dale Henry.

The 76-year-old Democratic candidate for the Texas Railroad Commission said the production of oil and gas in Texas does not matter if the industry destroys Texas' natural water sources.

"We have to stop wasting and contaminating our water," Henry said.

Henry faces Art Hall of San Antonio and Mark Thompson of Hamilton in the Democratic primary election on March 4.

Henry has more than 40 years of experience working in the oil and natural gas fields in the United States and abroad, according to his campaign Web site. He has a bachelor of science degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.

"I've been hands-on from the top to the bottom," Henry said. "I more or less speak the language of the oilfield."

The Railroad Commission is the state agency that regulates the oil and gas industry, gas utilities, pipeline safety, safety in the liquefied petroleum gas industry and the surface mining of coal. Established by the Legislature in 1891, the commission is the state's oldest regulatory agency, according to the agency's Web site.

The self-described environmentalist from Lampasas is a former city manager and county commissioner. He also founded 4 Arrows, the first cementing service company contracted by the railroad commission.

Henry said his experience in the oil and gas industry make him an ideal candidate for the commission. He said he knows the commission's rules and regulations from working as a contractor, and he would be able to begin working on his first day.

The oil and gas industry has a strong economic impact on the state, he said. That impact has come at a cost to the public, he said.

Henry said the commission has for many years considered the economics of the industry more important than public safety. He said that philosophy has changed in recent years, but it needs to continue to change. He said the commission must consider what is in the public's best interest.

"Environmentally, we have a problem," Henry said.

He said companies often cut corners when installing casing in wells to save money. As time erodes sealing and concrete shifts, water begins flowing and drawing out contaminants.

By forcing companies to install casing properly, Henry said companies would save more money in the long-term by avoiding remedial and repair work.

"These are serious matters," Henry said.

Attempts to reach Republican incumbent Michael Williams for comment were unsuccessful Thursday.

Read more in the Longview News-Journal

Super Bowl Tickets Part 2

R. A. Dyer - Politex - February 11, 2008

Last week, the Star-Telegram reported that state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, had accepted free Super Bowl tickets in 2004 from a top lobbyist for CenterPoint Energy.

But King, R-Weatherford, wasn't the only elected official to have accepted CenterPoint's largesse.

The same 2004 lobby report from CenterPoint Vice President Scott Rozzell that shows free tickets for King and his son also shows free tickets for Republican Michael Williams and his wife.

King chairs the House Committee on Regulated Industries. Williams chairs the Texas Railroad Commission. CenterPoint has business before both.

Watchdog groups have said it's improper to accept such gifts because it gives the impression that policymakers are too close to the industries they oversee.

But Williams, like King, said he did nothing wrong. Both are running for re-election

"It's legal and it's ethical and it's consistent with state law," said Williams. "It was reported who purchased the ticket, who I went with, who went with me and so forth. Voters can make their own judgments."

King earlier denied to the Star-Telegram that CenterPoint has paid for his ticket. But after being asked about the old lobby report from Rozzell, King acknowledged that he accepted the freebie.

King faces former Weatherford Mayor Joe Tison in the Republican primary. Williams is unopposed in the Republican primary. However, three Democrats are vying for that party's nomination to run against him.

--R.A. Dyer
Read more in POLITEX

Deal would expedite 360/E. Broad Street crossing expansion

By ROBERT CADWALLADER - Special to the Star-Telegram - Mon, Feb. 11, 2008
MANSFIELD -- An agreement between city and state officials could speed relief to the traffic-clogged intersection of Texas 360 and East Broad Street by early fall.

The City Council is set to consider a resolution tonight that would clear the way for the $785,000 project, which would install traffic signals and widen the East Broad Street crossing between the northbound and southbound frontage roads. The main lanes of Texas 360 have not yet been constructed.

"During the morning and evening peak hours, it's hard to get through the intersection," Assistant City Manager Chris Burkett said. "These improvements will help that, especially during the football season."

The Mansfield school district's stadium stands near the intersection, one of the most complained-about crossings in the city.

The state has agreed to allow the city to bid on the project; the state bidding process would take about six months longer. However, a major obstacle had to be negotiated away.

Several months ago, the state said that if city took over the project it would also have to take over maintenance of not only that intersection but all other state highway signals in the city.

The city has to start maintaining those lights anyway by 2010 because its population exceeds 50,000. But city officials wanted to avoid the estimated $192,000 in costs over the next two years.

State officials have now agreed to allow the city to maintain only the Texas 360-East Broad intersection during that period.

Mansfield City Council

Three elections: The council is expected to call the general city election -- to decide the Place 6 and 7 council seats, currently held by Michael McSpadden and Larry Broseh, respectively -- and two special elections to fill the mayoral vacancy and update the city charter for the first time in 20 years. Embattled Mayor Barton Scott stepped down last month in the face of a recall election. The three elections would be May 10.

State of the City: City Manager Clayton Chandler will outline the staff's analysis of the city's current and future financial health. In this shortened version of the staff's presentation to New York bond rating agencies in the fall, Chandler said he will acknowledge that the housing slowdown has crimped the city budget but that continuing commercial growth -- especially in sales taxes -- has eased the impact.

Gas drilling: The council will discuss a subcommittee's suggestions for stepping up controls on oil and gas well exploration. A key goal is to get drilling companies to share right of way to run transmission lines.

Read more in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Local area mayoral and council seats up for May 10th Election

The Dallas Morning News - Sunday, February 10, 2008

Here's a look at other selected mayoral and council seats up for election May 10:


•Arlington: Four of the nine council seats are up for election. Veteran at-large members Steve McCollum and Ron Wright, the mayor pro tem, have said they don't intend to run. The other incumbents up for re-election are Mel LeBlanc and Sheri Capehart.


•Duncanville: The balance of power could shift if the mayor's seat or the District 2 council seat changes hands. Mayor David Green and District 2 council member Scott Cannon routinely vote together when the council splits 4-3. Both plan to run again, as does one of their opponents, District 4 member Deborah Hodge.


•Flower Mound: Mayor Jody Smith is expected to seek a third term. In Place 2, Planning and Zoning Board member Steve Dixon is running, and incumbent Al Filodoro has indicated he probably will, too. In Place 4, incumbent Laurie Long isn't running; Planning and Zoning Board member Jean Levenick is expected to run.


•Garland: The council seats held by Douglas Athas in District 1, Laura Perkins Cox in District 2, Larry Jeffus in District 4 and Jackie Feagin in District 5 are up for election. All four incumbents are expected to run again.


•Grand Prairie: District 1 council member Lee Herring has said he won't run again. At-large member Ruthe Jackson and District 3 member Bill Thorn have said they will.


•Highland Village: Mayor Dianne Costa faces a challenge from Fred Busche, who left the council last year because of term limits. The two have sparred in the past over development projects at the FM2499-FM407 intersection. Two open council seats also are up for election: In Place 2, Don Combs can't run because of term limits, and in Place 6, Scott McDearmont has said he won't run again.


•Lancaster: Five-term Mayor Joe Tillotson's decision not to run has prompted District 5 council member Clyde Hairston to declare for the seat. The District 2, 4, 5 and 6 seats will also be up for election.


•Lewisville: Two council seats are up for election. Place 1 representative Lathan Watts plans to run again, and Place 3 incumbent Greg Tierney said he's leaning toward doing so. No challengers have surfaced.


•Park Cities: The mayors and all council seats are up for election. In University Park, all the incumbents but Harry Shawver (term limits) can run again. In Highland Park, Mayor Bill White and council members Andy Smith and Webber Beall face term limits, but Gail Madden, George Reynolds and Bruce "Smokey" Swenson are eligible to run again.


•Plano: Three council seats are up for election. Incumbents Loretta Ellerbe in Place 3 and Harry LaRosiliere in Place 5 are seeking re-election. In Place 1, term limits will keep Shep Stahel from running again.


•Rockwall: Three council seats will be on the ballot. Incumbents Stephen Straughan in Place 2, Cliff Sevier in Place 4 and Margo Nielsen in Place 6 have said they plan to seek re-election.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News

DFW REGIONAL CONCERNED CITIZENS ENDORSES DALE HENRY

By DFWRCC - Feb. 7, 2008ARLINGTON, TX - Feb. 7, 2008: DFW Regional Concerned Citizens, a watchdog activists group/think tank, formally endorses Dale Henry for Railroad Commissioner. DFW Regional Concerned Citizens recognized Mr. Henry last year as 2007 Texan Friend of the Environment for his service in educating citizens about safety and water conservation as gas drilling escalated in the densely populated Barnett Shale region of NCTexas. DFW Regional Concerned Citizens rarely endorses candidates in the primary, however, all of the founding members of DFWRCC voted to endorse Mr. Henry for Railroad Commissioner because of their consensus that his expertise as a safety engineer in the petroleum industry and work on milestone renewable energy projects, water conservation and research and development in technologies to increase the output of existing oil and gas wells better equips him to understand and regulate the Texas energy sector.

Mr. Henry, a retired UT Austin trained petroleum engineer, has devoted his life since retirement to pro-bono service to neighborhood and environmental citizens' groups during turbulent years when the Railroad Commission has failed to protect the environment, neighborhoods, schools and homes from industrial encroachments by gas and oil producers. Mr. Henry understands what regulations are necessary and what are excessive. He has used previous runs for Railroad Commissioner as opportunities to highlight shortcomings in the regulations which endanger and have cost lives in Texas.

It is our opinion that Mr. Henry's presence on the Railroad Commisssion will be beneficial to other members and to the citizens of this State. His belief that Railroad Commission inspectors, who currently work only weekdays, should be on-duty nights and weekends when most wells are drilled, makes sense to us. We believe that his experience in the industry will enable the Railroad Commission to understand the ramifications of how energy regulation is implemented in Texas.

Dale Henry has assisted TxSharon, a respected blogger who has documented failures of the Railroad Commission to protect citizens of North Central Texas from water contamination by Injection Wells and chemical disposal ponds. He has assisted citizens in the DFW metroplex in understanding the gas drilling/transportation process so that they could participate with their local city councils in passing stronger ordinances.

For the past three years Dale Henry has traveled the State of Texas talking with citizens and speaking out at public hearings against the Trans Texas Corridor. Mr. Henry understands the danger in running pipelines too near major traffic corridors. He objects to the exercise of eminent domain for private/public infrastructure projects. Whenever a government exercises eminent domain, the project should be totally for the public good is the message he has consistently delivered to lawmakers, citizens and the Texas Department of Transportation.

In making this endorsement, DFWRCC is stating the co-founders opinion that Mr. Henry is the best qualified candidate in either the Democratic Primary or Republican Primary to serve on the Railroad Commission at this time.

Dewhurst has doubts about TxDOT numbers

By Ben Wear - Austin American Statesman - Monday, February 4, 2008
Count Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst among those skeptical about the Texas Department of Transportation’s claims that the till is nearly empty.

Dewhurst, whose main duty as lite guv is to preside over the 31-member Texas Senate, sent Texas Transportation Commission Chairwoman Hope Andrade a letter late Friday expressing his “concern” over what TxDOT “is portraying as a serious and immediate shortfall in funding for transportation projects.”

Dewhurst, in the letter, referenced TxDOT deputy executive director Steve Simmons saying the agency, based on the current spending plan and the agency’s estimates of incoming money, would have a $3.6 billion shortfall by 2015. How is that a problem, Dewhurst wondered, when the Legislature has given the agency tolls allowing it to borrow up to $9 billion additional dollars? He said that available money wasn’t included in the evaluation showing the shortfall.

He’s referring to $5 billion in general fund borrowing authorized by voters in November (although the Legislature would have to act to make that happen, Dewhurst and others have said that is a near certainty), $1.3 billion of additional borrowing capacity in the Texas Mobility Fund and $3 billion in additional authority to borrow against future gas tax revenues. Dewhurst said he and other legislative leaders made it clear last fall in private meetings with the late Ric Williamson, then chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission, that the Legislature would do whatever it took to back that borrowing as well.

“I’m at a loss to see why they’re saying (that) now when we’ve given them additional tools they’ve chosen not to take advantage of,” Dewhurst said in an interview late Friday afternoon. “It appears they haven’t used them. Maybe we’re wrong.”
TxDOT officials were not available early Monday for comment. But I’ll be hearing from them later in the day and will post what they have to say.

TxDOT announced late last year that it would suspend awarding new construction contracts as of Feb. 1. By no means did that bring everything to a halt, however. Projects that already were under construction, or far enough down the procurement line, will still be finished. And there are other projects, such as the Trans-Texas Corridor tollways paralleling Interstate 35 and in the notional I-69 corridor, that are steaming ahead on their environmental and design work. And in the Dallas area, there is $3.2 billion available that the North Texas Tollway Authority just agreed to pay TxDOT for the right to build and profit from a key tollway. That money remains available.

But other projects — including several in the Austin area — have been put on hold, and legislators are both unhappy and suspicious about it all. So suspicious, in fact, that the Senate Finance and Transportation committees will hold a joint meeting Tuesday morning to grill TxDOT officials about all this.
Read more in the Austin American Statesman

Seeking Individuals Interested in Serving On the Corridor Advisory Committees

Excerpted from TX Rep. Betty Brown’s 2/1/08 e-Newsletter

Recently, the Texas Transportation Commission approved rules establishing Corridor Advisory Committees and Corridor Segment Committees. These committees will assist the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) with planning and decision-making for important corridors such as the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC).

Corridor Advisory Committees will assist TxDOT in the transportation planning process for major corridors of the state. Initially, two advisory committees will be established. One will focus on the Interstate 35 corridor (including TTC-35) and the other will focus on the planned Interstate 69 corridor, including I-69/TTC. Each Corridor Advisory Committee will focus on a broad overview of the project and its overall development. They will seek to build consensus among affected communities, governmental entities, and other interested parties for transportation. If you are interested in participating in the Corridor Advisory Committees, please contact my office by February 7.

In addition, TxDOT will begin setting up Corridor Segment Committees, which will focus on individual segments of the TTC. These committees will provide input and advice to TxDOT regarding designation of a specific route or what component of the TTC is needed for the respective segment of the corridor.

Membership for the segment committees will specifically include one member appointed by the County Judge of each county in which the proposed segment is located. In addition, on member will be appointed by each Metropolitan Planning Organization within whose boundaries all or part of the proposed segment may be located.

Gas pipelines have few rules, property owners discover - Companies can - and do - build where they wish

By JAY PARSONS - The Dallas Morning News - Tuesday, January 29, 2008

GRAYSON COUNTY – The roar of an uninvited bulldozer woke up George and Barbara Woodroof on a recent Tuesday morning. Mr. Woodroof took a last look outside his bedroom window at the hill covered with oak trees.

A week later, bulldozers had cleared hundreds of trees and a wide swath of nature on the couple's property to make way for a 36-inch-wide, high-pressure natural gas line that passes 290 feet from their home.
The Woodroofs don't want the pipeline, but they can't stop Houston-based Energy Transfer Partners from taking their land. Neither can county or state officials. Neither can most courts.

The reach of the gas-drilling boom in Denton and Tarrant counties extends to properties miles from the nearest gas wells, adding a twist to the long-running debate over Texas' eminent domain laws.

Gas companies often use eminent domain powers similar to governments' to acquire land for pipelines. But unlike government, for-profit businesses condemn land largely without oversight or democratic process. They don't typically go through public hearings, environmental reviews or impact studies. Gas companies need only to fill out a one-page form and pay landowners for whatever land they take – a system far more lax than federal standards.

Texas has more than 43,000 miles of intrastate pipelines – the most of any state in the country. And more are coming as production increases in the Barnett Shale – an expansive gas pocket beneath 18 counties, including Denton and Tarrant. Gas production soared from 79 billion cubic feet in 2000 to 698 billion in 2006.

"Right now the Barnett Shale is very prolific," said James Tobin, a natural gas analyst for the federal Energy Information Administration. "There are a lot of new pipelines being built in and out of there by a number of different companies."

Gas companies and some government officials say new pipelines provide a public service – expanding the market to increase supply and decrease costs for consumers.

Here in Grayson County, the Woodroofs and at least 29 other landowners are taking their only legal recourse – asking courts to force Energy Transfer to pay more for their land. The company is building a 140-mile pipeline connecting its gas wells to distribution plants in East Texas, a feeding point for gas going to other parts of the country.

An Energy Transfer spokeswoman said the company needs more pipelines to handle the Barnett Shale's production and uses eminent domain as a "last resort."


Eminent domain

Eminent domain has become a hot topic across the state. Texans are more familiar with eminent domain in the hands of government. The state uses that authority to make room for new roads. Arlington used it to clear land for the new Dallas Cowboys stadium.

A lesser-known provision allows for-profit businesses to condemn property to build utility lines, including valuable high-pressure gas lines. Almost any utility company can acquire eminent domain power with little government vetting – a system that allows private companies to operate more quickly and less democratically than government.

"It's a huge problem," said state Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, who represents Grayson County. "It's property rights fundamental to our freedom. It'll be on the top of our legislative agenda in '09."

Mr. Estes and others agree private companies should retain eminent domain authority but insist state laws tilt too heavily against landowners.

For pipelines crossing state lines, more stringent federal rules kick in. That approval process takes an average of 15 months and includes environmental studies and a public announcement, according to the Energy Information Administration.

But none of that happens in Texas. The Railroad Commission – the state agency that oversees pipelines – acts only as a safety inspector and records repository.

Gas companies can build lines almost anywhere, though they must follow basic safety rules. There's no review process and no incentive to move lines away from houses or bury them deeper to minimize the impact on future development. Nor are they encouraged to use existing utility easements, leaving instead an uncoordinated web often affecting more landowners.

"To [companies], hooking up wells and getting the commodity to the market is the first and foremost concern," said Pat Nugent, executive director of the Texas Pipeline Association, which represents pipeline companies. "If you have crews out there who run into bureaucratic red tape, they would have a real problem with that."

The result is that landowners – and public officials who represent them – often don't know about a pipeline until a surveyor knocks on their door to stake out a route.

"We need to get some laws in this state so the landowners have some rights again," Mr. Woodroof said.


Vetoed

In the last session, Mr. Estes supported House Bill 2006 to ensure that landowners receive fair-market prices in eminent domain cases. Property rights groups backed the bill. So did the Texas Pipeline Association. The bill passed 125-11 in the House and 29-1 in the Senate. But Gov. Rick Perry vetoed it, saying it would raise the cost of public projects by more than $1 billion.

"That was probably the biggest slap in the face that has ever happened to property owners in the state of Texas," said Joe Maley, organization director for the Texas Farm Bureau, which claims more than 400,000 members.

Mr. Perry did sign a related bill, known as the Landowner's Bill of Rights, which takes effect Friday. It assures "adequate compensation." But there are often two different definitions for it – the condemner's and the landowner's.

In the Woodroofs' case, Energy Transfer valued their 5.6 acres at $104,000. The Woodroofs valued it at $1.4 million, which takes into account estimated long-term damage to their remaining 470 acres. The price is being contested.

Property rights advocates say companies have little incentive to negotiate prices with landowners. Even if landowners win more money for the land taken, they can't recoup court and legal fees.

Landowners also don't like the payment structure. Mineral rights owners receive a stream of royalty checks when companies drill a gas well. But when taking land to transfer that gas, companies write only a one-time check that landowners argue doesn't cover the long-term costs of developing around a pipeline.

"We're paying the price for the transportation of someone else's gas," said Sissy Shankles, who has three pipelines on separate easements on her land near Burleson.

Once a pipeline goes in, gas companies can limit what landowners put above it and up to 25 feet on either side of it. Pipeline companies said they will work with landowners, but some developers said the extra hurdles often raise costs.

"You think you own it, but you don't," said Bob Sanford, whose 440-acre property in Grayson County is being crossed by Energy Transfer.

Mr. Woodroof said he asked Energy Transfer to build the line farther south, away from his home. He also wanted a guarantee the pipes would be deeper than 3 feet to minimize the impact on future development. Both requests were denied, he said.

Energy Transfer "tries to work with landowners to accommodate requests when they can," spokeswoman Vicki Granado said, declining to discuss specifics. "In some cases, they can move lines, and in some cases they can't. As a company, they try really hard."

Mr. Woodroof said the company made no effort to work with him.

"The rules will change when someone hits a gas line and 10 houses burn down," said Michelle Jones, the Woodroofs' attorney. "That'll be when they do something."

Rules for building a gas pipeline in Texas
To build a pipeline in Texas, companies must:

Step 1: Fill out a one-page form, called a T-4, to obtain a permit from the Railroad Commission of Texas. Operators must renew the permit annually.

Step 2: Pick a route for the pipeline and request the affected landowners' permission to survey their properties. If landowners refuse, companies may sue for access. State or local government approval is not required.

Step 3: Make offers to landowners for taking easements up to 50 feet wide. If the two sides can't reach a deal, the company may condemn the property. At that point, a special commissioners court sets the price. Once a price is set, the company can begin construction – even if the landowner appeals. Landowners can contest only the price, not the company's right to their property. Landowners can't recover legal fees – even if courts rule in their favor.

Step 4: File a construction report with the Railroad Commission at least 30 days before work begins.

Step 5: Begin construction. Landowners retain access to the pipeline easements but are restricted in how that land can be used. Developers must obtain permission from pipeline companies to build roads or water lines over the pipelines. No structures can be built on top of a pipeline.

Note: Pipelines carrying toxic, so-called sour gas have additional restrictions.

SOURCE: Dallas Morning News research

Regulation of gas pipelines in Texas
Here's a look at the state's regulation of gas pipelines and the rights of affected landowners:

What's the issue? Energy companies can build pipelines almost anywhere without any government involvement or permission from landowners.

Who regulates gas pipelines? The Railroad Commission of Texas was established in 1891 to regulate the rail industry. But today's Railroad Commission has nothing to do with railroads, as that authority was transferred to the Texas Department of Transportation in 2005. Instead, the commission primarily oversees the energy industry.

What's the Railroad Commission's role? The commission's primary roles are to conduct pipeline safety evaluations and act as a records repository. If companies meet state standards and fill out the proper paperwork, the commission cannot stop a pipeline project or examine the proposed route before construction begins.

What rights do landowners have? Not many. Last year, the Legislature passed the Landowner's Bill of Rights, which becomes official Friday. The document spells out 10 rights, including the right to hire an attorney and the right to "adequate compensation," though the term is undefined. Landowners do not have the right to challenge the pipeline route, but they can go to a special commissioners court to seek more money from the pipeline company. Landowners can appeal that price through the court system but cannot recoup any legal fees.

Read more in the Dallas Morning News