So, what's wrong with this picture? The regressive Republican Lt. Governor, David Dewhurst, has come out in favor of SB 3, a bill designed to regulate water usage, introduced by Democratic Sen. Ken Armbrister (Victoria) that would (a) raise taxes, (b) allow a new class of lawsuits, (c) limit pumping rates for high volume water wells and (d) save wetlands. What is Dewhurst thinking? I mean, not to be cynical, but based on their recent record, when a Republican backs something that actually makes sense, don't you have to ask, what are they really getting out of this? Or, at least, what are they getting in exchange?
Now, I'll admit the bill isn't perfect. But here's what it would do: First, it would create a new tax of 13 cents per 1,000 gallons of water used per user per month, above 5,000 gallons. Considering that average water usage per month for households and small businesses is 5,100 gallons, most of us should be able to avoid almost all exposure to this tax. The fee would be used to fund new water projects, such as regional water planning commissions, municipal water conservation and desalination efforts, as determined by statewide and regional planning boards. One problem is that, as the Austin American Statesman says, citing Armbrister, the proceeds of the tax are estimated to provide less than 2/3 of the needs. The tax could also be more equitable, better encourage conservation, and perhaps provide for the full need, if it were progressive.
Second, the bill would provide for specific flow rates on Texas rivers that contribute to gulf coast-area wetlands. It does contain exceptions for years of drought, but these sections of the bill have gained approval from the Texas branch of the Sierra Club, on the theory that rates of flow in non-drought years would be sufficient to allow wetland recovery from drought.
Possibly the most important provision is that Texas' 100-year-old right of capture rule would be modified to limit the pumping rate of wells, and would permit owners of neighboring wells whose capacity is reduced by high-volume wells to take their grievance to court. This may be the critical provision because it's the one Republican constituencies have pushed for. Farmers and ranchers have long sought limitations on the ability of private owners of water rights to pump rural water for non-agricultural purposes, mainly cities. As cities have grown across the state, many have purchased rights from private landowners, and wealthy private citizens (T. Boone, that's you) have sought to become water/pipeline barons. This legislation doesn't stop those practices, but makes them more expensive, because the extraction rate won't (at least in theory) be allowed to exceed the recharge rate.
The Houston Chronicle notes that the bill grew out of a year-long study (no mention of who conducted it), and has bipartisan support. Inside the Texas Capitol, a blog by imasuit, describes the process as a compromise among farmers, ranchers, environmentalists and wildlife advocates that has taken eight years to mature. So, is it possible that the needs of actual governance have intruded upon regressive Republican ideology? Shouldn't we just give them credit for doing something right, and move on?
Well, maybe. And the Senate, which operates a bit more collegially than the House, generally under the hammer-lock of Speaker Craddick, may serve the Lt. Governor's interests by appearing to be less ideological. But here's the problem. The Republicans clearly have the numbers to ram through the pumping rate provisions without most of the rest of the bill. Why are they agreeing to raising taxes and limiting river flow rates? As George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute point out, Republicans have learned the art of thinking strategically, forming positions that contribute to an overall strategy, rather than just solving a specific problem. Besides, you're not cynical if you really do get stabbed in the back every time you turn around, so here's a couple conspiracy theories.
First, all of the tax uses and the water flow restrictions are subject to the action of a series of alphabet soup boards and commissions, filled with members who will be appointed by governors. It isn't hard to imagine that Republicans now consider the Governor's mansion to be party property. So why not agree to warm, fuzzy provisions about saving ducks and geese that can later be gutted by executive fiat? Besides, as the party in power, they are realizing that government resources are sources of patronage power, to be doled out to favored groups and individuals. The fact that this is exactly the kind of corruption they railed against in order to gain power doesn't keep them up nights.
Second, consider who are the losers of the pumping rate restrictions? Aside from T. Boone, it's mainly cities, who will face serious limits on growth before very long. If R's want to protect their core constituencies, who are wealthy business elites, real-estate magnates, high-end suburbanites, and so forth, they don't want to have their industries, lawns and golf courses competing with drinking water. That means that city growth rates must be slowed. And if that means there will be no increase in city dwellers in the future, and hence not much growth in core Democratic constituencies, well, they may just have to live with that.
So, should Democrats oppose this bill? There is no doubt that it would do a great deal of short-term good. And they certainly lack the clout to insist upon independent commissions instead of Gubernatorial fiefdoms. But perhaps there is one of those odd alliances available between city Dems and ideological anti-tax R's. Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Chris Bell has already sounded a clever note by calling the tax "a new tax on being alive." On the other hand, water really is a limiting factor for Texas' quality of life, and I don't really want to ever get so clever that I stop advocating for that.
DEMOPHOENIX
|