The state’s plans to take away Houston’s water rights have run into a little snag called the Texas Constitution.
Late last month, a Travis County district court found that HB 2846, which would have forced the city to sell its ownership stake in the Allens Creek reservoir project to the Brazos River Authority, was illegal.
Judge Karin Crump of the 250th District Court ruled that the law violates several provisions of the state constitution, including Article I, Section 16 which prohibits retroactive laws; Article XI, Sections 5 and 9, which prohibit forced sales of municipal property held for public use; and Article III, Section 56, which bars the Legislature from enacting so-called local and special laws.
Water is an invaluable resource and it’s only going to be more precious in the future. The court’s decision helps protect Houston’s resilience and sustainability in the face of drought and continued growth, making it a valuable win in what may be a harbinger of legal battles to come as water in the region becomes scarcer.
“This a very important victory for Houston and all Texas cities and towns,” Mayor Sylvester Turner said in a statement. “No city would have been safe had the bill been allowed to withstand constitutional scrutiny.”
But even as city officials bask in the glow of their courthouse success, they should consider Houston’s role in precipitating the Legislature’s interference.
The permit for the Allens Creek Reservoir was issued in 1974 to supply cooling water for a nuclear power plant to be built about 30 miles west of Sugar Land. Those plans fizzled and the permit lay dormant until it was revived by the Legislature in 1999. In 2002, Houston and the Brazos River Authority bought the 9,500-acre reservoir site and entered into a joint agreement, dividing the water rights and the costs — estimated at around $350 million — in a 70-30 split.
The deal stipulated that the project would begin construction no later than Sept. 1, 2018, but in 2011, the city pushed a bill that delayed the start to 2025 and set a completion date by 2030. Over the last decade, the BRA had attempted to negotiate an earlier start date, offering to buy out Houston and guarantee water for the city to purchase, but city officials put off any action.
From the city’s perspective, this was understandable. Houston’s water rights in the Trinity and San Jacinto river basins, along with conservation efforts, left it with no urgent need to develop the reservoir, nor be in any rush to put up its share of the multimillion-dollar project.
Just as understandable was the position of the BRA and officials in Austin County, where the projected 100,000-acre-foot lake would sit. The river authority faced a pressing need to serve communities and petrochemical plants downstream in the Lake Jackson area. For Austin County, rather than untaxed idle land, development would bring recreation and economic opportunities for local communities.
Spurred on by petrochemical interests, the BRA took its case to the Legislature, where lawmakers were perfectly happy to set a troubling precedent.
Hoping to forestall the legislation, Mayor Turner committed in writing to speed up development of the water project. The BRA, seeing blood in the water, refused to budge.
The judge’s ruling puts the issue back in the control of the project’s partners, and out of the Legislature’s hands. That’s good. Houston and the BRA should embrace this opportunity to work together on a timeline that works for everyone.
"water" - Google News
January 09, 2020 at 04:00PM
https://ift.tt/39RAypy
Houston’s water rights are safe — for now [Editorial] - Houston Chronicle
"water" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2XpCTT3
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Houston’s water rights are safe — for now [Editorial] - Houston Chronicle"
Post a Comment