Ballot Language:
The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $250 million to provide assistance to economically distressed areas.
This amendment attempts to continue building the state’s infrastructure via a program that has been around about two decades. The bonds have helped economically distressed areas improve their public safety by providing a means to fund clean water and waste removal.
S.B. 2, 71st Legislature, Regular Session, 1989, established the Economically Distressed Area Program (EDAP) which provided financial assistance in the form of grants and loans for water and wastewater service to economically distressed areas. This bill designated the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) as the administrator of EDAP. H.B. 467, 79th Legislature, Regular Session, 2005, expanded EDAP on a statewide basis by allowing counties in which an economically distressed area exists to apply for assistance under EDAP. TWDB has reported that there is an estimated $5.4 billion in water and wastewater needs in economically distressed communities of this state. EDAP was originally financed in the early 1990s through voter approved constitutional amendments that authorized the board to issue up to $250 million in general obligation bonds. Now, only a fraction of the bonds remain to address the outstanding water and wastewater needs of distressed communities.
The fiscal impact on the budget for the next five years is estimated to be $34,059,361.
- 2008 ($974,540)
- 2009 ($4,919,321)
- 2010 ($7,064,901)
- 2011 ($9,510,910)
- 2012 ($11,589,689)
Americans for Prosperity is against it:
Reasons: The board has estimated a need for $5.4 Billion and has $12 million remaining bond authority. This program appears to be a black hole where the more money available, the more building will take place in unincorporated and hard-to-serve areas. Taxpayers can’t afford to continue this program.
BigJolly says: I hate to go against the fine folks at AFP but I’m voting for this one. Yes, it does increase the state’s debt but not by much in the big picture. To me, it’s an investment in the infrastructure of the greatest state in the Union and will help us continue our thriving economy.
Clean drinking water and proper waste disposal are fundamental to public safety. These bonds make a real difference in the lives of real people. For all of the hype surrounding the boondoggle of Prop 15, to make a real difference in public health, they should be supporting these type of investments, not celebrity driven marketing campaigns.
And with that, folks, it’s a wrap. You have 16 amendments on the ballot. Vote wisely, it’s for the children, ya know. 
Click to read comments for and against.
From the Texas Legislative Council Summary (note: 131 page pdf file):
Comments by Supporters: The authorization of additional funding will help the state meet the water and wastewater infrastructure needs of Texas’ residents. Despite the success of the economically distressed areas program, many Texas residents continue to lack water and wastewater infrastructure. Unless additional funding is provided, many residents of unincorporated and economically distressed areas will be forced to continue to live in communities lacking basic infrastructure. Providing residents access to clean water and adequate sanitation is necessary to promote public health.
The economically distressed areas program has administered more than $500 million in state and federal funds to provide assistance to economically distressed communities located primarily along the Texas-Mexico border. The Texas Water Development Board estimates that economically distressed areas program communities require an additional $5.4 billion to meet those communities’ water and wastewater infrastructure needs. The board, however, has only $12 million in bond authority remaining, and the federal government has reduced the appropriations to the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund, which also provides funding for the construction of water and wastewater projects along the border. The state should provide additional money for the economically distressed areas program so as to ensure that the board has the resources necessary to meet the state’s water and wastewater infrastructure needs.
Extending water service to unincorporated and economically distressed areas would benefit the economy in those areas. Many of the communities that lack adequate water and wastewater infrastructure are poor. Building water lines would enable businesses to move into those communities, improving the tax base and creating jobs for residents. Investing in necessary water and wastewater infrastructure for economically distressed areas program communities would be a prudent use of state funds.
The economically distressed areas program benefits the environment by reducing the amount of polluted wastewater discharged into state streams and bays.
Comments by Opponents: The economically distressed areas program should not be expanded by the authorization of additional funding. Since 1989, when the program was created, the Texas Water Development Board
has received more than $500 million in state and federal funds to provide assistance under the program. The problem the program was intended to address, however, has not been resolved. Continuing to extend water lines to unincorporated areas could even prove to be counterproductive because this action encourages people to move into regions that are costly to serve.
The state cannot afford to authorize more bonds that will impose a further burden on the state’s general revenue fund and increase state debt. The state should address its water and wastewater needs in other ways. For example, the state could expand grants and tax credits for low-income housing or provide counties with additional authority to regulate the development in unincorporated areas.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
27 Responses to “November Ballot - Proposition 16”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Gotta vote no on this one. It’s not the state’s job to improve living conditions and/or enhance property values. As soon as it’s done, the poor are gone and in move the rich(er). Besides, who is economically distressed? Need a better definition.
Thank you for all the time and effort you put into these Propositions Big Jolly
Liberal.
You are most welcome!
Um, that was a most welcome for # 2, not the troll.
I have personally gone through the amendments and will vote against any bond issues (including local school bonds)every time they come up. Any reason to get more money (even loans) is ludicrous with all the tax money coming in. If you cannot balance budgets with all the money they have/get I see no reason for approving bonds for more. Besides I keep hearing that Texas has a $XX billion surplus. No need for a loan if you have money in the bank. We need some amendments that say X% should be eliminated each year/5 years to keep costs down. When I see gov’t trying to eliminate and not build/increase then we will be moving forward.
The state can scrounge this money out of all that surplus they have. I’ll have to say no on this one.
#6 jacampbell, Ditto, I heard Dan talking about the need to build more schools YaDaYaDaYaDa! But I’m with you, My school taxes have doubled in the last 8 years and what did they do with the money?
Rush is right about how to fix the schools, just ask “do teach?” No, you’re fired next.
Although I agree with the goal, I don’t agree with the funding process.
Big J I have a question. Since they started this in the 90’s and are almost out of money, how did this program in the past help?
I mean what is 250 million when we apparently have a 5.4 billion dollar problem. Just curious did the 250 million keep it from being a 8 billion dollar issue? or did it really do nothing and we continue to see a growing problem?
Just curious…. Seems like if we spent 250 million and still have a growing issue that exceeds that number exponentially, we should be looking for a real fix and not another band aid.
Broc,
I think the people you need to ask that question to are the people that now have clean water to drink and don’t have waste problems.
Look at the population growth of Texas since 1989 and you will find your answer. No one predicted that this would solve all problems forever. We are a growing state.
You know, sometimes, tax money is spent wisely. I think this is one of those times.
Having been involved in rural water and wastewater services in the past, I can offer some limited insight.
First, this is a public health issue. As small towns and rural areas become more densely populated, septic systems and private water wells simply don’t cut it.
Second, These areas are not like larger cities with their larger tax bases and abilty to issue bonds; only the State can help these areas to put together financing and grants to for these expensive projects.
There are some grants available from state and federal sources, but these are few and far between. These grants are based on the number of
low income people in the proposed service area. These grants only covered a small percentage of the costs. The water systems I was involved with all had sizable 40 year notes they were paying off. They have no taxing authority and their only source of income is sales of water to their members. Membership (to receive water service) in these Water Service Corporations is completely voluntary. You cannot be force to join a rural Water Service Corp.
As population density increases the state requires updates to the systems and new wells to be drilled to increase capacity. The last well I saw drilled cost $98,000. These are not 150 foot “homeowners wells”. In this area they are 900+ feet.
There are a lot of areas in this state where shallow wells are not an option for homeowners due to pollution or lack of a shallow water source at all.
Thanks for your work on these propositions big jolly. It had to have been time-consuming.
11
Oops. That’s a typo. The well cost $198,000. This did not include land acquisition costs nor accompanying plant upgrades.
If there’s no water there, the people will go elsewhere. If there’s water there, people will come from elsewhere. It’s economic development disguised as public health or whatever other costume you want to put on it. It is best left to the private sector to deal with these matters.
BigJ like I said, I was just curious. If this is a bigger issue and it appears to be, lets not throw a band aid at it.
We should get a head of the curve and try and do it right. I am the last one to want another government entity, but when it comes to health and water, I am more inclined to approve of one.
We should scrap the amendment and get something better and bigger. There is plenty of money in Texas budget.
Rastus,
The people are already there. They can’t afford to live in the cities but that’s where the jobs are. So they settle in small, unincorporated areas. That is precisely why the program was expanded, to include the fringes of the counties of Harris, Fort Bend, Dallas, etc.
It truly is a public health problem.
Just received from the local GOP:
Sen. Reid has invoked Rule 14, to force a vote on his hated “Dream Act” Amnesty for Illegal Aliens. This vote is set for today!!! Passage of this bill would encourage tens of millions of families around the world to consider smuggling their teenagers into the U.S. where they would get an amnesty upon graduating from high school. The amnesty has no expiration!
16
Oops. wrong thread.
Broc,
As we’ve seen, the politicians (the we elected) are unwilling to spend cash on hand because they are afraid of having to raise rates later (and get unelected).
The larger amount is intended to scare people away. Sure, we could find ways to spend that much money but that isn’t what the amendment is for. It is to extend the current program by $250 million.
I’m assuming that your last line was sarcasm, right?
Where is this influx of rural population coming from? I’m sure you’ll pick up where I’m going with this question.
Heck, that’s where everyone goes when they need to boost their issue, coffee, don’t feel alone. ‘Ol Fred did it yesterday to try and boost his sagging campaign.
Hmmm if that’s true then maybe there is the root of a problem. I’ll note that when I grew up in rural TX, we got along fine without all the “economically distressed” assistance. While I believe it to be a perfectly valid issue to raise, we’ll just exclude that argument for now because without it, there are still good reasons to oppose this bond. The biggest is the overwhelming issue that the state has more money than it knows what to do with already.
big jolly i want to second #2 boxie thanks for taking the time to explain these props to us dummies.
Hey, there aren’t any dummies at LST!
Thanks.
More people coming in, why a bigger bond? Do not the existing taxes on municipals (MUDs) and any other taxes collected supposed to fund expansion since they are collecting the taxes from the person/family. Health problem or not the money is already in the gov’t coffers under some fund/account. They are asking for more to do what gov’t is supposed to do, basic infrastructure. It is the waste for admin, welfare, boondoogles that is draining the tax money they are getting.
Also DaveD, is heard Dan yesterday talking about the bonds and he is cautiouly “neutral” about the school bonds. You have to take a stand on every issue. That is why I say no to any school bond. They need to cut something out before they try to ask for money. Also Dan was talking about the Robin Hood fund taking $50MM from Spring ISD so that is why they need bond money to fix up schools. Well They are asking for $600 MM. Big difference from $50 MM. Too many wants and very few needs and no eliminates.
24
These areas are not inside MUDs or municipalities.
Economically disadvantages areas of Harris, Ft. Bend, and Dallas Counties? Sorry, you had me going there for a minute or two, but think the locals in those metro areas could figure something out without taxing the whole state. No, no, no.
Once again a HUGE round of applause to Big Jolly for helping explain in simple easy to understand terms what the HECK these propositions are saying!!!
I must say this is the only one I have great qualms about following your ideas on…maybe the word bond just scares me…to me it’s like opening a new credit card and I am looking at this huge list of credit cards the state wants when they already have who knows how many maxed out. (Yes credit card is how I equate it, let my little mind use something to grasp concepts ok :-D)