Texas Constitutional Amendment Prop 6

Politics & Elections
1

The third in the series, Prop 6, labeled SJR 1. I have to confess that this one I cannot make heads or tails of. The legalese is tripping me up, and I’m just not sure what it means. This is also the most controversial of the proposals, so I would like to understand it.

SJR 1 would create a State Water Implementation Fund as a special fund inside the state treasury and outside the General Revenue Fund. Money in the fund would be administered by the Texas Water Development Board and would be used to implement the state water plan, as adopted by general law, by TWDB.

The proposed amendment would read on the ballot:

That doesn’t sound that complicated, but the devil is in the details. I’m trying to read the summaries and analysis linked above, but I get lost in all the details about general obligation bonds and bond enhancements and related credit agreements.

As I understand the proposal, the existing Texas Water Development Board is charged with overseeing a plan to ensure Texas has adequate water resources for the future. Given the existing statewide drought that has been ongoing for a couple of years and projected water use for the growing population, the Board has a challenge to ensure that projects are created to protect the necessary water supplies.

This proposal authorizes the creation of two new funds under the authority of this Board. These funds would be separate from the General Funds, and thus would gain some legal advantages for the State. The proposal also would take money from the Rainy Day Fund and transfer it as seed money to the funds. This would be considered taking money previously intended for these activities and putting it under the Board’s controls.

Opponents of the proposition argue the rainy day fund should not be used to create the two new funds, and that any new funds should come from general funds. They think taking money from the rainy day fund will affect the state’s credit rating, as well as reduce resources for a potential future emergency (like a hurricane). They argue doing so is an accounting trick to avoid a constitutional limit on spending. They also argue the funds are unnecessary, as there already exit two dedicated water development funds and several financial assistance programs for water infrastructure administered by the Board.

Unfortunately, both sides just blindly claim it will or will not affect the state’s credit rating. There is no justification for either position.

Also, what is the need for these new funds? Are there existing funds? If so, how do these new funds differ, what would they allow that isn’t already possible?

Like I said, the nuts and bolts of the proposal are making my eyes glaze over without making sense to me (just what the funds are doing, how they get the money, etc). Something about issuing bonds and ensuring they have funds to cover the bonds. At this point I don’t understand enough to support the proposition, but I would like to try.

2

Texas needs constitutional amendments for all this shit? Why do they elect a legislature?

3

I can think of two reasons and they’re both related to corruption. If the proposed amendment is honest it may be a means to create a dedicated fund for important water projects so the money can’t be re-routed to somebody’s pocket.

Or maybe the amendment is designed for corruption. Maybe people are trying to create the special fund so they can raid it without legislative oversight and put the money in their pockets.

4

The Texas Constitution is filled with stuff that would be better handled by statute. We believe in “Independence”, remember? Power to the people. The Governor is constitutionally very weak. That’s why I laugh when people cite George W. Bush’s or Rick Perry’s experience as Governor as being a qualification for President. Perry has a lot of power only because he has been Governor for so long that every person on every board and commission was appointed by him. Everyone in state government owes him favors. Bush did not have that.

If history is any guide, Little Nemo’s second proposition is likely correct. Raiding this new fund will be completely legal.

5

It’s not entirely dispositive, but in cases like this I fall back on this question:

Who’s for it and who’s agin it?

That will generally tell you what the ultimate purpose is. For example, in this case, I would look at Sierra Fund (or similar), Rancher’s Association(s), Land Developers Association(s), etc. Depending on which of those sides you agree with generally, you’ll have at least some guidance on how to vote.

It ain’t perfect, but sometimes it’s the best I can do with limited time.

6

Texas has a very tightly controlled Constitution. Looking online at the Taxation and Revenuesection, I see the following:

There is apparently a long section about the Texas Water Development Board here.

7

That is one of the things I am endeavoring to determine.

8

When we studied Texas Politics in Jr High, we learned that our Constitution sucked. Well, the teacher didn’t use that word–but it’s hardly a masterpiece in political thought. Amendments are common–one of the reasons our polling places offer ballots in several languages. Unless you’re quite elderly, knowing English is a requirement for citizenship–but those propositions are not easy even in your “native” language.

The Burnt Orange Report, known to be run by Texas Liberals, is in favor of Prop 8.

The Lege meets every 2 years & the Republican members are too busy being TeaPartier Than Thou to pass the laws actually needed by the State of Texas…

9

While I don’t particularly agree with this woman’s opinions or methodology, this sitehas the most in depth analysis I have found.

So the Board already has access to 6 Billion dollars in annual debt limit and is not spending anywhere that amount. Why do they need another $2B? If the problem is the permitting process, how does the creation of these new funds address the problem?

Looking at wikipedia, the reason Texas’s Constitution requires so much tinkering appears to be it lacks a “Necessary and Proper” clause, so everything has to be spelled out to be allowed. Essentially, more power reserved to the people vs given to the elected officials to determine for us.

10

So, the purpose of all your questioning is to recommend a Tea Party source. I notice you ignored my link.

Thanks for your concern…

11

It’s worth mentioning that Prop 6 has strong bipartisan support. When Rick Perry and Wendy Davis are on the same side of an issue we should probably take notice.

12

You seem to be impugning my sincerity. I assure you, I’m not a Tea Party member. Hell, I’m mostly liberal when it comes down to it. I already mentioned that I don’t agree with that lady’s methodology for her determinations or many of her conclusions. But at least that page had actual information, which is what I’m seeking.

I did not ignore your link, I read it. Tell me where it explains anything about current budget allocations to the water problem. Show me where it justifies the new expenditures. I see it telling me that we have a water problem, but nothing to justify the claim that funding is currently an issue. At least that Tea Party site talks about the existing $6M that is slated for this Board’s control to spend on water development projects. Sure, it claims the money is not being spent, and I’d like more support for that statement, and it claims the problem is not a shortage of funding but rather permitting. But like I said, it has given me the most actual information.

The point is I do not understand the proposed amendment, it’s need, or the method of execution. Somebody make the case why this solution makes sense.

I know there’s a water problem, but how does this proposed fix address the problem versus what is currently available for the board to spend?

All well and good, but nobody has explained it well enough to me to understand, so I’ll probably vote against it.

13

The League of Women Voter’s Guide has a short explanation of the amendments here: http://lwvhouston.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/VG2013-English-WEB.pdf

14

When there are a bunch of propositions on the ballot in an off-year election in Texas, it’s a fairly safe bet someone is trying to sneak someting past the voters because of the low voter turnout in off years. So, if you want to vote and don’t have time to deeply research it, the safe thing to do is, “JUST SAY NO!”.

Texas (and the rest to the country) has a serious water problem that will only get worse. I don’t see anything in Prop 6 that fixes that. What I read into it, in all my glorious cynicism, is it’s opening a loophole in the current water development funding to channel money into private developers’ pockets.

15

Thank you. I read that, too. That has some useful information. There are still aspects I don’t understand, but that explanation tries to give context on the funding and not brush over elements to fit an agenda.

Part of the reason for the proposed new funds appears to be to give the legislature freedom over “disbursements” that they do not have under the general revenue fund. What freedom does that entail?

They list several methods of making bonds more attractive: supporting low-interest loans, making longer repayment terms, incremental repurchase, and deferral of loan payments. I’m not sure what those specifically entail. Is that basically lending money to the project owners to finance paying back other loans/bonds they have created?

E.g. local community needs to build a dam. They want to issue bonds to cover the cost, but don’t wish to raise their taxes high enough to pay those bonds back in the standard 10 year time frame (or whatever). The TWDB would allow that community to issue those bonds to build the dam, but essentially borrow money from TWDB to pay those bondholders back and then assess a lower tax rate to recoup that cost over a longer time frame, such as 50 years. Is that what they’re talking about?

If so, is the problem with the existing funds in the Texas general revenue fund that the legislature does not have authority under the Constitution to do those kinds of lending? The reason for the creation of the two new funds is to place those funds into the Constitutional loophole of dedicated funds outside the general revenue fund? By doing so, it grants the legislature the freedom to do those lending programs?

The $2 billion would be seed money for investing, and repayments from those loans could be investing in other projects. The $6 billion available under the general revenue fund cannot be transferred to that account because the Constitution strictly controls the general revenue fund. That $6 billion is available debt obligation but must be paid by existing revenue streams (i.e. taxes).

Does that sound like I’m on the right track?

It has been pointed out that there is another big proposition that wants to take money from the Rainy Day Fund that has been postponed one year so they don’t take two hits on the Rainy Day Fund at one time.

Well yes, but I’m trying to do a modicum of research.

16

To do such productive activities as define marriage to preclude gays, and limit abortions and abortion providers.

17

Plus there has to be someone to declare things the State Thingy. You know, State Migratory Bird, State Miley Cyrus song, and so on.

18

Gotta be Wrecking Ball, right?

19

This article has a collection of linkson both sides of the topic. Unfortunately, the only articles I see even discussing the existing $6B funding are from DallasNews and are defunct links, and I keep getting a forced pop up trying to get me to sign in.

The best explanation for why we supposedly need this new proposition is to allow the $2B so the legislature can lend this money out to other providers at lower rates than banks would. They claim it would help small communities, but the list of Prop 6 supporters is a lot of big industry providers like real estate and petro-chem companies. The enabling legislation nominally guides some of the funding to conservation efforts, but the wording on those elements are wishy-washy.

The TWDB has apparently been “streamlined” by appointing Rick Perry cronies, and the true beneficiaries are suspected to be industries wishing to siphon water from rural areas rather than any true efforts at improving the water situation.

Digging around, I’m getting the feeling this is a poor plan. There are better ways to address the real causes of water shortage, including:

  1. Mandating industries improve their water efficiency.
  2. Updating leaky water pipelines.
  3. Possibly address the issue of water used in fracking. It is wasteful and removes water from the water cycle by locking it into bedrock.

Since nobody from the supporting side wants to address the available $6B, I feel like the point of this legislation is to bypass Constitutional protections and support cronyism.

FWIW, I’m not particularly concerned over the topic of taking from the Rainy Day Fund. I think the situation is crucial enough and the Rainy Day Fund healthy enough that if the rest of the plan were justified, I would be okay with the one-time raid for this project. I’m just not convinced it is necessary or that it is the best approach to solving the water crisis.