On October 25, 2011 an Agenda Wise article addressed the idea of this Proposition 2 plan which basically provides a credit line for water projects in Texas. On the previous day, Austin's KLBJ, TAB's Steve Minnick framed Prop 2 in terms, informing us that we need more water infrastructure if we expect to attract more businesses to the state. While this is true, the Prop 2 idea equates to us cutting off our nose and spite of our face, as one said.
Proposition 2 does not provide $6 billion for water projects, it provides a $6 billion credit line for water projects in Texas. Basically, this means that as soon as the water project is paid off, the amount that has been paid off can be used on another water project immediately without voter permission. This funding feature is called "Evergreen" and has only been used once before for veteran loans.
Steve Minnick said the state of Texas needs to spend $231 billion on water infrastructure over the next 48 years.Mathematically speaking, that is requiring almost $5 billion each year until the year 2060; seems a little too high. The article says that if the people who do these projects can convince us every year for the next 40 years that we need another $5 billion project, then we must really need it, but it would be quite stupid to say "yes" to all 48 $5 billion water projects in advance just because the lobbying arm of the people who will get these contracts has told us we need to spend this kind of money.
My thoughts are a bit conflicting, I'm kind of on the fence. Considering the drought we are in, Texas desperately needs to start making significant progress enacting the state water plan. Maybe the left over money from the water projects could be used for situations like this when we really need water, so I guess it could be beneficial to us if they really use the money to help us. As the population grows, the need for water also grows. Think about this, what is our future going to be like if we do not invest now in water supplies?
Investing in the water projects could be a good idea, on the flip side, the amount of money they are wanting to use for these projects is ridiculous (at least to me). Unless I knew that these water projects were legit and they were going to improve our state, I don't think I would want to contribute a dime. In the article it said that the amount that has been paid can be used on another water project immediately WITHOUT voter permission. I don't know about you but if I was giving money for these projects, I better know exactly what it is going for and who is to say that the left over money isn't going for other things besides water projects; $6 billion dollars is a lot of money to me. In the long wrong, Proposition 2 could be a good idea but I don't think it should require nearly the amount of money they are asking for. Although, I am not fully educated on exactly how much these water projects should cost versus how much they are going to cost.
In response to Use Common Sense, not lobby sense, on Prop 2, by Brailyn. I whole heartily agree with her that giving a metaphorical blank check to the water industry without voter oversight is a bad idea. In doing so we would be allowing the water industry to build whatever they choose, when ever they choose. Granted they would have to contend with zoning laws and land use restrictions, but is that really enough? I think not. The corporate world has a bad record of taking government monies for granted and inflating the costs of conducting business to a ridiculous number. For instance in my industry, the average mark up on body armor sold to the US military is 4 times a 100% profit on the each piece of armor. That while good for the business involved, drains our government coffers of money that could be put to use in other areas of concern, like education. Again like Brailyn, I do see the need to invest in our water supply infrastructure. However, Proposition 2 is not the correct answer in my opinion. I would be behind a one time credit of 6 billion dollars, assuming that every penny spent is accounted for and that the cost of each project is audited to ensure that we, the citizens of Texas, are not paying 400% of what it costs for the companies to build their projects and still receive a reasonable return. Unfortunately, 51% of the voters yesterday are either more trusting than I am or did not fully consider the risk involved in passing this proposition and it has been approved.
ReplyDeleteSo I did a little reasearch into the the Texas Water Project and found that Brailyn's blog info is correct that there is too much money for a seemingly incomplete plan. Wanting to know more about where the rest of that money will be going I found the drafts for the project and read parts A, B, and C. The Water project is wanting this funding to pay for a few pipelines and the water itself and at no cost to us thanks to a loan from the the TWDB. That's not right because they want fifty-three billion dollars as a loan from the TWDB plus another twenty-six billion dollars coming from financial assistance programs to perform the project in 2012; this will all be payed back with our tax-payer dollars. The total quota for this project is two hundred and thirty-one billion which still has yet to be provided. Also when I read through the draft of the supposed plan, there was no mention of what exactly will be done only elusion to things that had been done in the past. This plan is more like a history of water disasters and relief in texas coupled with a ton of statistics on water consumption. That is alot of money and wanting to know where it is going is a valid concern seeing as we are going to be footing a portion of the bill over the next couple years.
ReplyDelete