govbizpartners.com

Editor’s note: It’s now been more than a month since the election. I have made it a habit to set things I write aside for a day or two to let them simmer if my purpose is analysis, particularly if it has emotional content. The little piece below has been simmering for more than a month. I pulled it up today to see if I still thought it was more or less on target.

Today, I think the jury is still out. What voters said November 2 was clear, loud and real-- a profound political moment in both Texas and the entire nation. But, was it a tectonic shift? That remains to be seen. After all November 2008 was a tectonic shift in the other direction. Tectonic shifts only become recognizable after the mountains stop shifting. In the meantime tectonic change is extraordinarily dangerous to creatures who live in the vicinity of the exploding landscape.

Newly minted Republican office holders will not know until the next election exactly what the Democrats’ crushing defeat has handed them. If the people of Texas really want a fundamental shift in the scope, size and power of state government as determined by future budgets balanced solely by deep cuts in programs which until now have been considered to be unimaginable, they will be golden. But if the voters of 2012 decide the slashing of government has caused dislocations even more frightening than the current uncertain economy, our new representatives could find that November 2 gave them a terrible victory.

I still find much of the analysis below to be about right, so, here it is. This is what I was thinking when my mind was reeling with the shock of freshly counted votes.

 ************

 “These are the most amazing numbers I have ever seen. The Republicans are bombing the Democrats back to the Stone Age.”

Senior Executive Editor, Paul Burka, Texas Monthly, Burka Blog, two hours and seventeen minutes after polls closed in Texas November 2, 2010

“… (I)t is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that's lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve….Voters don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.”

Scott Rasmussen, Pollster writing in the Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2010:

Forecasting Republican gains of 55+ in the US House of Representatives and 25+ of 37 in the US Senate

The 2010 Texas Election: A Tectonic Shift

In the 2006 mid-term elections, voters decided to punish Republicans who were out of touch and unresponsive to average voters as evidenced by undisciplined federal spending and continued involvement in two costly wars which seemed unnecessary to America’s national security interests. In 2008, they were joined by additional disaffected voters who hoped for a true change in the politics which would restore the linkage between ordinary citizens and the people elected to serve them.

In the mid-term elections of 2010, voters about faced once again in reaction to continued rejection of the concerns repeatedly expressed by ordinary Americans that their newly minted “Hope and Change” politicians elected to serve the people had once again established themselves as the “new” ruling elite, immune to the pleas of the majority.

If that sentiment was the theme of the public’s message nationwide, it was amplified through a statewide bullhorn in Texas’ own 2010 elections. Texans who had been a hard sell for the Obama political magic in 2008 rejected not only Obama, but any who lacked the will to join them in that rejection.

The result after the dust settled on the night of November 2 was that a center-right majority decided that those politicians most comfortable splashing in the shallow waters of the political middle were part of the problem. The Continent of Texas would no longer be allowed to continue its drift toward the left, toward bigger, more activist government and higher taxes. The public demanded a sharp turn in the other direction, and moderates were not invited to help moderate how far and how fast the course change was to be implemented.

 For the first time since the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, Republicans were given full control of Texas state government along with the demand that they do something with it. To accomplish the task, voters retired virtually every Democrat in a state office with any semblance of a competitive district. Twenty one Democrat incumbents were sent packing, just as the Republican primaries of last march sent moderate Republicans down the same rocky road to the private sector.

For Republican State Representatives, this is unexplored territory—a majority so large that House Republicans have been deprived of any plausible excuse for failure to implement the kind of lean, low-tax, jobs-friendly governance we grew comfortable selling, but not delivering.

When January 11, 2011 sees Texas Representatives sworn in, the tally will be 99 Republicans; 51 Democrats, pending a potential election contest which could turn the ratio to 100-50, a full two thirds of the House. With a two-thirds majority all fifty House Democrats could go to Oklahoma and not impact a single vote if Republicans stick together.

In regard to the coming legislative session, this election was more than a mere continental shift which speaks to the directional changes voters demanded; it also fundamentally changed how the legislative game will be played. There can be no more balancing of power with disaffected liberals. Those who successfully led such efforts in the past have been banned from the game.

The will of state budget hawks will be the law of the land…or else. New taxes, either overt or disguised as user fees will be rejected. The state budget will be pared by draconian cuts—not just fat, as the term has been used in the past, but meat, bone and sinew, because taxpayers are tired of feeding the beast. If the new sparse budget won’t cover the expenses of current government programs and projects, voters have said we probably don’t need to be doing that anyway.

Texas voters said with a shockingly united voice that they do not want business as usual. They want the change they have been demanding. And in language equally unmistakable, they do not want the changes championed by President Obama and his newly retired Congress.

And just so similarly minded politicians in Texas don’t miss the point, Tuesday’s vote sent home seven Democrats who were considered vulnerable because they sounded less conservative than their districts; and then sent home thirteen more, who in 2008 hadn’t looked so bad. Voters said, paraphrasing Rasmussen, Texans don’t want to be governed, they want to govern themselves.

When the Earth’s tectonic plates shifted millions of years ago, the clash of continents created mountain ranges, unleashed volcanoes and earthquakes, permanently altered the climate and eradicated dinosaurs which for eons had ruled the earth. It proved to be their extinction event.

But for small and furry things which suckled their young, those sporting more agile brains and warm blood, it was the break they needed to develop into the dominant species.  

Finally, one last thought: sometime during the budget crisis of 2003 a pastor came to the House floor and offered our morning prayer as was customary. I have calculated that in my seven terms I heard roughly 1,500 such prayers, but only one still rings in my ears. Without preamble, that pastor approached the microphone and prayed the following:

“God, thank you for the hard decisions which force us to decide who we really are. Amen.”

Senators Whitmire and Patrick are on a mission from God.

While they may seem like a political odd-couple, Democratic Sen. John Whitmire and Republican Sen. Dan Patrick are contemplating how to implement in Texas an in-prison program similar to one they saw in action inside the Louisiana State Prison. Angola, the largest maximum security prison in the U.S. spans 18,000 acres, surrounded on three sides by the Mississippi River, protected by levees first hand-built by inmates. It houses 5,000 of Louisiana’s toughest inmates, the state’s execution chamber, and six vibrant churches created by and led by inmates.

In this once-infamous prison hell-hole, Warden Burl Cain supervises not only the state’s executions and the toughest never-to-be-paroled inmates, but the nation’s first Theological Seminary behind prison walls. It was here last May that Senators Whitmire and Patrick for three days observed formerly violent criminals praying for one another, and, despite the racial and ethnic divisions which typically fuel violent prison confrontations, worshipping together in peace. The pastors were inmates, some of which were new graduates of the prison extension of the New Orleans Baptist Seminary. The two Texas senators were there to observe that graduation ceremony at the invitation of Warden Cain.

Upon returning to Texas, Senators Whitmire and Patrick began a series of meetings with officials of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and other agencies to explore how Texas prisons might reap the primary benefit they observed in the Angola prison: reduced violence against corrections personnel and among inmates. They explored the obvious church-state issues which might arise, worked out how to conduct such a program within constitutional guidelines, and think they have found a willing partner, one of this state’s most respected theological seminaries.

Whitmire, Dean of the Texas Senate and Chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee (for longer than most senators have been in the Senate) has the lead. Patrick will serve an enthusiastic supporting role.

Having served for a decade on the House Corrections Committee, I wanted to hear firsthand about this ground-breaking project and asked to get more details of their experience in Angola, and how a similar prison seminary might work to the benefit of Texas, crime victims, and public safety. Senator Dan Patrick took time from his busy schedule for the following interview.

The Interview with Sen. Dan Patrick

Q:  Tell me about the proposed "Inside the Walls Seminary" concept, your trip to the Angola prison, and any important things you took away from the experience you and Senator Whitmire had inside Louisiana’s toughest prison.

A: For me, this journey started with an award-winning documentary film I produced in 2008, Heart of Texas (ed.: www.heartoftexasthemovie.com ). In the film we chronicled the true story of a tragedy which hit two families near Fulshear, Texas, just west of Houston, when a beloved four-year-old child was killed in a hit-and-run accident.

The father of the child was a devout Christian who has become a close friend, Grover Norwood.

I was captivated by his personal reaction to the tragedy and to the man who was found to have been driving the car which killed his daughter. The driver of the car was Grover’s long-time, personal friend, Ulice Parker, a devout fellow Christian who happened to be African-American.

Rather than pressing for harsh justice, Grover met with his old friend and his family and determined that Ulice was not aware at the time of the accident that he had hit and killed Grover’s child. Grover knew instantly that Ulice needed forgiveness rather than aggressive prosecution and punishment.

In the midst of their mutual suffering following the tragedy, Grover felt led to help meet some of the physical needs of his friend and his family. Grover ultimately came to believe he needed to help build them a new home, a challenge beyond his personal ability to meet, so he sought and received the help of friends and neighbors from the community and the surrounding area.

First came the accident; then, their personal Biblical response of repentance and forgiveness; Grover’s and Ulice’s deeper and growing spiritual bond; and, finally, the community’s overwhelming response to Grover’s call to help his friend and fellow Christian. All these things ultimately led to what was described by all who saw it unfold as a miraculous outpouring of God’s grace and blessing which impacted an entire community.

It was Grover Norwood who first approached me with the idea that the state of Texas should consider following the lead of a Louisiana prison warden’s seminary-behind-prison-walls. Because I knew his incredible story, Grover had personal credibility which made me take his idea seriously. I told him at the time, “Grover, I will support you, but this idea won’t go anywhere unless Sen. John Whitmire thinks it’s a good idea.”

When I broached the idea to John, he told me, “I’ll support any idea which I believe will improve Texas’ prisons.” So, we met with Grover and began making arrangements to travel to the Louisiana State Prison, Angola, to see firsthand what Warden Burl Cain had put in motion several years ago. We also planned to attend the graduation ceremony of 46 new inmate-pastors.

Q: I know that you have a background in Christian radio, and that you authored at least one Christian book…but, what, exactly, did you see in Louisiana that caused you to believe a seminary behind prison walls could work in Texas?

A: Well, first, you have to know something about the history of the Angola prison. It was established as a prison agricultural farm in the 1880’s. Critics said it was comparable to a slave plantation where brutality was the rule rather than the exception. Through the years, various reform efforts improved conditions from time-to-time, but budget shortages repeatedly allowed the prison to fall back into brutality and chaos.

In the early 1950’s, thirty-one inmates slashed their own Achilles tendons in protest of the brutal working conditions on the farm, and in the late 1960’s Angola was known as “the bloodiest prison in the South” due to uncontrollable violence among inmates. Angola still houses 5,000 inmates, primarily those serving no-parole life sentences, or who are awaiting execution on Louisiana’s Death Row. I read that the average inmate’s sentence there is around 87 years.

When Warden Cain took over control of the prison in 1995, he instituted reforms based upon his belief that changing the culture of a prison had to begin with changing the character of the people inside the walls, both inmates and correctional staff. To reduce the violence which plagued Angola prison for a century, he believed that only God could lead hopeless men to desire to change their own lives, and that their desire to change would change their behavior. That led to the creation of the prison seminary.

While we were there as guests of the warden, Sen. Whitmire and I worshipped with convicted murders and rapists. There were no guards in the services. Pastors and participants alike, once among the most hardened criminals in the toughest prison in America, were clearly and obviously changed. Despite the fact that I have been a Christian for many years, the experience was almost unbelievable.

For those who are not people of faith, the inarguable fact is that violence among inmates and against corrections officers has plummeted at Angola since Warden Cain’s reforms were put into effect. Both the inmates and the prison staff say spiritual change is what has led to dramatic behavioral changes throughout the prison. That’s what we hope to bring to Texas’ prisons—true rehabilitation, particularly among the worst of the worst, and reduced violence inside our prisons.

Q: What possible obstacles do you see; and, what opposition do you anticipate as the seminary proposal moves forward in Texas?

A: If done right, I think this project will generate little or no opposition. For example, from the beginning we need to establish that no state funds will ever be used to support any specific religious point of view. Inmates who apply to be part of the program should be accepted like applicants to any college pastoral program: on the basis of their likely ability to successfully complete the program and graduate with a four-year degree.

We need a warden who is willing to faithfully implement the program and scrupulously follow all laws, rules and guidelines. We want a facility populated with long-term inmates like those in the Angola prison, and a facility which is physically suited to accommodate this added program. Obviously the Texas Department of Criminal Justice must fully support this concept, and assure that it is appropriately supervised.

I believe most Texans will support efforts that seek real rehabilitation of inmates, but, I know they expect us to make sure we don’t use a single tax dollar to support any religious agenda. When we handle these questions properly from the beginning and assure that the program follows the law, the Constitution, and common sense, there shouldn’t be any lasting opposition.

Bringing hope to those who otherwise are without hope seems like the first requirement for rehabilitation; and, that’s an important part of what our prisons are supposed to accomplish. 

Texas Water Wars: This Time It Could Get Serious

The term “water wars” is used liberally when discussing disputes over Texas scarce water supply. It is significant that, according to Oregon State University historian Aaron Wolf, there is only one recorded incident of an actual war over water. Since that clash between two city-states in the Tigris and Euphrates Valley 4,500 years ago, water disputes have been settled, if not amicably, at least without resorting to wholesale armed conflict.

Water wars have become part of the lexicon in Texas as water has moved from being a natural resource to more of a commodity – to be bought, sold and traded. Many argue we are already there.

Here are some examples of modern day Texas style water wars about which I’ve already written.

T. Boone Pickens unveils plan in 2009 for a $1.5 billion initiative to pump billions of gallons of water from the ancient Ogallala aquifer beneath the Texas Panhandle and build pipelines to ship water to thirsty cities such as Dallas – kicking up some sizable West Texas dust.

Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) provides water to more than 1.7 million Texans in an 11-county area, and wants to buy water from Oklahoma. However, Oklahoma isn’t selling. So they go to court.

Fort Stockton is not happy and challenges billionaire oil tycoon Clayton Williams Jr., the 1990 Republican gubernatorial nominee,  over his plans to sell water from its local aquifer to a town more than 100 miles north.

Yes, these are currently in the news, but you ain’t seen nothing yet. A conflict going back 146 years is threatening to elevate Texas water wars to a new level. It’s the proverbial clash of the titans.

The University of Texas versus Texas A&M University.

On July 19^th, GSD&M gurus Steve Gurasich and Tim McClure, along with UT President Powers unveiled H2Orange - water packaged in a bottle that is a scale-model replica of the UT Tower. About 40 percent or about $1 million of proceeds from the venture will go to scholarships, fellowships and internships for UT students.

I asked myself, “Can A&M be far behind?” 

Then, last week, a high-level aggie source (HLAS) who wishes to remain anonymous confirms that indeed, A&M is working on artwork, bottle shape and pricing for their own signature bottled-water product.

“We’re not going to stumble out of the chute like the Bum Steers at UT did,” says HLAS.

This is an obvious reference to the protests over the H2Orange plastic bottle like those which currently line the highway right-of-way and choke landfills. Protesters marched on the campus with signs that read, “H2OMG,” “Honk if you hate plastic trash” and “UT Bottled Water is not a smart idea.” Activists were arrested and jailed.

According to anti-bottle water activists, bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. Food and Water Watch says that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away.

“We want to be responsible environmental stewards, so our bottles will be totally biodegradable and recyclable,” continues HLAS.

HLAS hesitates for a moment then says, “One has to be careful any time you release a product closely tied to the University – particularly a controversial product that involves a plastic bottle. If the bottle is discarded inappropriately, that’s a reflection on the University. We want folks to know that we have done everything humanly possible to do the right thing.”

State Representative and DGA (darn good Aggie), Tim Kleinschmidt was unaware of A&M’s effort to produce a bottled water product but likes the idea. “Leave it to an Aggie to get it right,” jokes Kleinschmidt. “I would think that the folks over at UT would figure out that the bottles would have to be biodegradable and recyclable. They have some mighty bright people over there.”

“So we’re going enjoy rubbing UT’s face in it,” says the grinning HLAS.

Loathing may not be exactly the right word to describe many Aggies’ feelings toward the Longhorns. But what do you call it when thousands of Aggies (including my wife) bought U of Alabama gear leading up to the national championship game between UT and Alabama? Another Aggie friend shared the following anecdote to illustrate.

An Aggie operating a small sailboat on the open sea spots two drowning men. One is UT alum and another is a member of the Taliban. The Aggie sailor has only one life preserver. He thinks hard, prays a little and tosses the preserver to the Taliban reasoning that he’s the one most likely to be worth saving.

Or how about this one:

Q: What does the average UT student get on his SAT?

A: Drool.

The Aggie enmity toward UT is much like trying to describe infinity. And the Longhorn derision of Aggies has spawned a million Aggie jokes. But it’s all in good fun, right?

“Oh we’re going to have fun with this all right,” says HLAS. “I’d like to invite all the environmentally conscious tea sippers to partake in our new Aggie agua. We’re thinking about having a web page or a Facebook site depicting UT clad folks guzzling our water product. That’ll be a hoot, don’t you think?”

Aggies versus Horns: the latest Water Wars smack-down.

If the current federal guidelines remain etched in stone, there is no way we can continue to meet the state’s obligation to come up with the necessary funding.

Rep. Otto closed out our conversation, his voice trailing off to silence… 

            ”What are we going to do, when the federal government can’t continue borrowing enough money to sustain the growth of the system?” 

It’s a weighty question which lacks a satisfactory answer regardless of which side of the isle is your political home.

Texas’ Future Water Sources

An average Texas household like mine uses around 150,000 gallons of water per year. An acre foot of water (the amount of water necessary to cover an acre one foot deep or 325,851 gallons) is a measurement better suited to describing larger quantities of water. Our state currently uses around 15.6 million acre feet of water annually (5,213,616,000,000 gallons—see what I mean?) Approximately 41% of our fresh water supply comes from lakes, rivers and streams; the rest comes from underground sources commonly called groundwater.

Our state’s need for water is growing along with our population, and as we learned in our recent drought our vulnerability to serious water shortages is real. This vulnerability is more pressing in some places than others because while the state as a whole has enough water to meet current needs, the sources of that water are not geographically located where the water is needed and can be efficiently delivered. That’s why there is a growing desire by some entrepreneurs to partner with cities to move water from one part of water-rich regions of the state to those who need it and want to buy it.

Our surface water sources are effectively maxed out. And, groundwater found primarily in nine major and 21 minor aquifers is rapidly nearing its capacity to meet near-term future needs. That realization has intensified local and regional political struggles between those who have water and want to protect it and those who also draw from the same aquifer and want to sell it at a profit.

Similarly, cities with large populations want to secure their future water supplies, while those with abundant supply who hope to grow in the future want to hold on to the water sources they currently possess. In a previous post I referred to these intensifying political and economic conflicts as water wars.

While I haven’t been able to find a global number to describe our surface and groundwater inventory of fresh, usable water in terms of acre feet,  I recall estimates that our projected annual usage of water by 2050 will be around 21 million acre feet per year which means that some regions of the state will suffer shortages. And, even highly effective conservation measures applied statewide at every level are highly unlikely to provide a long-term answer to our future water crunch.

So…what are we to do?

Did I mention that the Gulf of Mexico is filled with water? Did I also forget to mention the 2.7 Billion acre feet of brackish groundwater which lies beneath the surface of Texas?

If the salty chemical compounds which make seawater or brackish water unsuitable for drinking and irrigation can be cost-effectively removed, there’s no such thing as a water shortage in Texas’ future.

Seawater is essentially limitless in quantity, but contaminated for drinking by roughly three to three-and-a-half percent salt. These salt compounds can be removed using available technologies. Befesa, one of the leading companies in the world in desalination design, construction, and related technologies has located its U.S. operations right here in Texas.  

There’s also the fact that Befesa’s engineering subsidiary, NRS Consulting Engineers literally wrote the book on desalination of brackish groundwater for the state, as well as the only two seawater desalination pilot projects in the state (Guidance Manual for Brackish Groundwater Desalination in Texas, 2008, published by the Texas Water Development Board) Guidance Manual for Brackish Groundwater Desalination in Texas, 2008.

Virtually none of Texas’ 2.7 billion acre feet of brackish groundwater is even one-third the salinity of seawater.  And, nearly 2 billion acre feet of that vast supply are less than one-tenth as salty as seawater. That means that using current technologies, Texas brackish groundwater has the capability of supplementing the state’s available fresh water supplies to meet total state needs for the next few centuries. In several of Befesa’s production facilities in far south Texas, brackish groundwater is currently being treated into drinking water at a wholesale cost of less than $1.54/1000 gallons—a cost clearly competitive with existing fresh water sources.

Another point worthy of note is that brackish groundwater is abundant in many areas of the state where fresh water is in critically short supply. Plus, as alternative energy sources like wind and solar power continue to increase in efficiency; and, as energy costs per kilowatt hour fall, Texas is ideally suited to efficiently produce energy for desalination in precisely in those regions where desalination of brackish groundwater offers a workable alternative to existing sources of fresh water. Fortunately using alternative energy sources to power desalination operations is yet another specialty of Befesa’s desalination expertise.

Finally, there’s this: Desalination produces fresh water along with a host of byproducts, primarily a high salt-concentrate solution. What are we going to do with that concentrated salt water?

One obvious use is as the primary fluid for salt water injection wells which help increase natural gas production by pumping the liquid underground under high pressure at strategic locations forcing natural gas into recoverable pockets. Today, gas producers have to drill saltwater wells, pump salt water to the surface, then, haul it to the appropriate site where it can be injected into wells as needed. Saltwater concentrates from desalination operations could be substituted at lower cost to gas producers, while providing a marketable byproduct capable of deferring some of the costs of desalination operations.

But the signature desalination by-product idea which makes me smile is this one. The vast majority of all salt used in the U.S. is spread on roadways in winter to melt ice. Simply letting the sun turn salt-water concentrate into salt is cheap and technically easy. States which experience hard winters spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year purchasing salt to spread on frozen roadways each winter.

It’s embarrassing, yet liberating to admit that something primal rises inside me to celebrate this idea: Texans selling our useless salt waste to Yankees to melt their frozen highways, while we, in our shirt-sleeves throw Frisbees to each other on Christmas Day, their money jingling in our pockets.

Is that so wrong?

Criminal Justice Policy: An Unlikely Bipartisan Consensus

In today’s hyper-partisan political atmosphere it’s hard to find an area when folks on both sides of the aisle are willing to publically agree on anything, especially in the months immediately prior to an election. But, one policy area exists in the Texas legislative world where common ground has emerged—Criminal Justice.

Surprisingly, people as politically different as Marc Levin of the right-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation and Ana Yanez Correa, Executive Director of the left-leaning Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, the Texas chapter of the ACLU and the evangelical Restorative Justice Ministries of Texas headed by Emmett Solomon all have strongly supported criminal justice reforms to strengthen probation supervision as an alternative to prisons for certain classes of non-violent offenders, to adequately fund drug and alcohol treatment programs for offenders both inside and outside of prisons, to strengthen accountability of offenders to judicial authority using specialized courts aimed at substance abusers, offenders with mental health issues, and to actively promote treatment and short-term confinement as a lower-cost alternative to technical violations of probation or parole which results in offenders being returned to costly prison beds although they did not commit new offenses.

It’s important at this point to clearly say that none of the above supporters of the reforms have proposed going soft on violent offenders, sex offenders, incorrigible criminals or the like. They have simply recognized two basic irrefutable facts: many offenders’ principal crime was related to lack of maturity, addiction to unlawful substances, mental illness or youthful irresponsibility; and, prison beds cost roughly 26 times more than the costs of effective community supervision and treatment which is shown to reduce future crimes.

These disparate reformers understand that tough prisons are and will remain part of the answer. But, they have learned from bitter experience that indiscriminately filling prisons with young, low-level offenders usually ends in the creation of new, hardened, better trained criminals on the back end of the system. Tough prisons are necessary for dangerous offenders, but on the front end of the system, effective, results-based probation supervision, enforced accountability to the courts, effective treatment, and other alternatives to incarceration actually work better than prison for many offenders; and, the cost to taxpayers is dramatically less. That’s not only tough; it’s smart.

Today’s criminal justice reform consensus is being led in the Texas House of Representatives by

the current and former Chairs of the House Corrections Committee, Rep. Jim McReynolds (D) and Rep. Jerry Madden (R). They both emphasized the likeminded leadership of Senators John Whitmire (D) and Kel Seliger (R) in their own chamber, pointing out that agreement between the House and Senate is required for any measure to become law. I interviewed Reps. McReynolds and Madden separately, on separate days, asking them to answer identical questions. The highlights of their surprisingly similar responses follow. Apparently, bipartisanship is not dead when it comes to some crucially important policy issues.

                                                                  **********

 The Q & A

Q. Should probation and treatment program funding be exempted from the current round of proposed  5% budget cuts, and from the anticipated larger budget cuts of the 82^nd legislative session?

McReynolds: Unequivocally, yes! I’ve already talked to the members of the Appropriations Committee and its chairman, and I believe they understand the position we are in. Prisons cost more than 25 times more per offender than probation and treatment alternatives. We have to grow the front end of the system; not cut it. If we weaken alternatives to incarceration, every dollar we save will end up costing us twenty five times more when those offenders are sent to prison.

We need to continue building up the front end of the system with progressive sanctions (increasing punishment for lack of compliance with conditions of supervision, ed.), short-term confinement when necessary as a diversion from long-term confinements; and, I believe our system must ultimately aim at the redemption of human lives. This is the direction we have to go. After that, it’s a simple financial equation: $1.72 per day for offenders on probation (those who do not pose a likely danger to the public) versus $50 a day to house the same offenders in prison.

Madden: Certainly probation and treatment programs should be exempt from the current round of cuts. We are currently gathering information to see exactly how the current reforms have worked to reduce the need for unnecessary and costly prison beds, and the preliminary numbers look very encouraging. In the next legislative session we will look at every facet of corrections operations to see where we can cut unnecessary spending, but I currently don’t see any of the reforms which include better funding for basic supervision, reduced caseload funding, treatment and diversion programs which should be cut.

Q. If TDCJ does not cut funding to probation and reform programs, where should the agency make spending cuts to help balance the state budget?

McReynolds: I’m not ready to say we’ve identified where the cuts will need to be made in the next budget. Obviously every program in the agency will need to be examined. There are plenty of areas where inefficiencies are still costing the state unnecessarily like TDCJ’s ongoing dependence on paper records. The lack of an integrated and efficient electronic offender management system, unnecessary travel and inmate transportation costs are examples. Obviously we need to look at cuts in capital expenditures when people are having to tighten their belts back home.

But, at this point, I am not ready to think about closing any prison units until we get updated population projections, and a better idea how the reforms we instituted in 2007-09 are reducing the need for prison beds. Three years ago the recommendation was to build new prisons to accommodate the flood of inmates entering the system. Instead of funding new prison construction, we added funding to basic probation supervision, reduced caseloads to enhance the quality of supervision, added drug and alcohol treatment beds and programs for compliant probationers, and funded additional short term diversion beds. Today, TDCJ has roughly 4,000 empty beds and the crime rate has not risen, so it looks like our strategy is working the way we intended it.

However, before we begin considering additional policy changes or budget cuts, we need to analyze and evaluate each agency program in detail and see the LBB’s prison population projections due in June. Until we have seen actual numbers and projections, I am not ready to recommend any specific cuts.

Madden: The key question which will drive TDCJ’s 2011-12 budget is “How many prison beds do we really need?” All other budget decisions follow that one because the cost of prison staff is the largest single item in the agency’s budget. If population projections from the Legislative Budget Board bear out, we might consider closing one or more prison units, but that will not be considered until we know public safety would not be compromised by lack of prison capacity.

Beyond that, to reduce inmate transportation costs, we should immediately move ahead with regional releases rather than bringing all inmates back to Huntsville for their discharge. We also need to look at other agency travel and the costs of operating the agency’s airplane for executive travel; and, we need to take a look at how the agency is spending on outside contracts. When the Board of Pardons and Paroles and TDCJ  fail to coordinate inmate completion of treatment programs with parole orders, their lack of efficient coordination has a huge negative budget impact on the prison population, and that needs to be addressed.

Over 10,000 criminal aliens have committed felony crimes in Texas and are crowding our state prisons. The federal reimbursement pays for only about one-third of the cost. The federal government should be paying for their costs in Texas and other border states which are bearing the brunt of their serious crimes. Even worse, the state and our counties are paying a high price for criminal aliens on probation. We should look carefully at legislation to turn over criminal alien probationers to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and let the federal government deal with those costs rather than making Texas taxpayers bear the burden alone.

It’s too early to start recommending specific kinds of agency budget cuts. We need to wait until August after we have had a look at TDCJ’s Legislative Appropriations Request and start from there.

Q: The other key component of the state’s criminal justice strategy deals with juvenile justice programs. What do you see on the horizon in regard to changes and/or budget cuts for the Juvenile Probation Commission and the Texas Youth Commission?

McReynolds: There is little room for sizable budget cuts in juvenile justice programs. In the past two and a half years TYC has dramatically reduced the population in its facilities, and the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission keeps only 2% of its funding for administrative expenses, passing along the rest of its funding to local juvenile programs. Cutting TJPC’s budget would just shift costs directly to counties and would not save taxpayer dollars. I just don’t see any significant savings to be made by budget cuts in juvenile justice programs other than to look for additional efficiencies and scour the agency’s budget for any unnecessary spending.

On the positive side, the new Juvenile Case Management System shows great promise for greater efficiency. It will combine academic records, mental health histories, records of current and past supervision, behavior, residential placements and allow better diagnosis of physical and mental health conditions, guide more efficient and effective treatment, and lead to better outcomes which means long-term reductions in crime. That means fewer victims, and for the youth in the system, changed lives. Our specialized courts have proven their effectiveness in the adult system and it’s time to expand them into the juvenile system to reduce the need for extremely costly TYC beds.

Finally, there’s one problem we need to fix immediately. Each year within TYC, mental health professionals determine that 30-40 youthful offenders have exhausted every resource the agency has to offer, and are still not responding. Despite their prior serious crimes, these youths have been released without supervision and without mental health care…nothing. We’ve been able to temporarily stop the releases, but we need to find a permanent solution.

And, one final thing: there are thousands of women locked-up who are not just inmates. They are also mothers, wives, and often, the victims of abuse and exploitation. Their needs are very different from those of men in the system. We need to look very carefully at how we deal with female offenders and assure that we are doing all that should be done. Children whose mother is incarcerated face unbelievable hardships which put them at severe risk of future criminal behavior. Our policies ought to reflect our best efforts to positively change the lives of incarcerated women and those whose lives are so dependent upon them. To do less than our best means unnecessary fiscal costs down the road, and a terrible cost in human lives, both for future crime victims and the dependents of offenders.

Dying for a Drink

The House Committee on Natural Resources met last week to talk about water and how to assure that all Texans have enough to meet their needs into the foreseeable future. To the uninitiated, it sounded like an explosion of acronyms in an alphabet factory: GMA’s, GCD, DFC’s, and overseeing all, TWDB and TCEQ.

But it took only a few minutes to see the big picture as it emerged from the mountain of specific smaller issues raised in the nine-plus-hour hearing: Texas is getting uncomfortably close to reaching the limits of available fresh water. Those not completely saturated with it are moving into position to assure that their needs will be secured as we near the limits of easily available supply.

According to the Texas Water Development Board Texans used 15.6 million acre feet of water in 2003—enough water to cover 15.6 million acres of land with one foot of fresh water. Fifty-nine percent of that water came from underground fresh water aquifers usually referred to simply as “groundwater.” The remaining supply comes from surface water sources, primarily Texas’ lakes, rivers and streams. This 59% ratio is expected to continue through 2060.  

According to figures from a 2006 TWDB report, Texans are expected to use around 18.3 million acre feet of water in 2010. By 2030, the consumption projection says demand will have risen to 19.6 million acre feet. Since new man-made reservoirs are expensive to construct, politically daunting, and require decades to complete, it is unlikely that our future need for fresh water will be met by major increases in available surface water.

Of course that leaves groundwater as the primary source to supply our state’s growing need for water. Now comes the difficult part. The bulk of Texas’ groundwater is found in 9 major and 21 minor aquifers not evenly distributed (geographically) throughout the state, and not necessarily coinciding with the state’s population centers where the thirst is expected to become more acute with each passing year. Geography creates one distinct set of challenges which, in general, pits urban population centers’ needs against those of rural regions, and small rural towns against entrepreneurs who want to sell large quantities of water out of the local area.

Second is the question regarding who owns and/or controls the state’s water resources. In general, the state owns the rivers and lakes. But the question of who owns groundwater is considerably more complicated. Clearly, landowners have claims to sub-surface water resources. But what if one landowner pumps water from a specific aquifer and uses it wastefully while another conserves every drop for future generations? Whose right to determine rules for use of sub-surface water should prevail? What entity(s) should decide? In what forum and by what method(s) should the decisions be made? What parties needs should be included in pursuing decisions? What process should determine these kinds of decisions, at what cost, and who should pay those costs?

Should voters settle most issues, and if so, should those votes be cast at the source of the groundwater, at the location of greatest need, by all voters across the state, or by dispassionate third parties in Austin? What is the role of conservation as it applies to proposed uses? Does a city’s need for drinking water trump the needs of farmers for irrigation to supply food to those same population centers? Where does industrial use of water stand in the line of competing priorities if local jobs are at stake? How do individual land owners protect the sources of water beneath their property from those in need of it whose voting numbers are vastly greater? Should individuals rich in groundwater be allowed to control the destiny of millions who live where groundwater is scarce, yet essential to their future?

The Texas Constitution assigns the responsibility to answer these kinds of questions squarely on the Legislature. In an attempt to fulfill its obligation over the past 60 years, the Legislature has established a dizzying array of agencies, regional and local constructs with varying powers and responsibilities ranging from scientific measurement and mapping, planning and advisory roles, technical assistance, and  the power to exempt from permitting, to permit or to deny access to groundwater altogether.

After years wrestling to resolve these complex questions, the handwriting is on the wall. Texas’ relatively abundant groundwater resources could become over-subscribed within the lifetimes of legislators currently serving. That means current Legislators increasingly feel the pressure to decide issues of genuine consequence to their current and future constituents to whom these concerns are now, or soon will be, matters of physical, economic and political life or death.

So, will water be the signature, divisive issue of the 82nd Legislature? Not even close.

Redistricting and a record budget shortfall will push water policy into the background in 2011. But it won’t make water’s issues less important.

Delisi: Texas Highway Congestion

Texas highway congestion is going to get worse—much worse over the next 20 years unless our method and amount of funding changes drastically according to Texas Transportation Commission Chairperson, Deirdre Delisi. She spoke April 21, in a Texas Tribune sponsored breakfast forum in Austin. In a wide ranging discussion, she detailed the gap between available and needed state funding, describing it in terms of a “deep hole” we are digging as a state. I spoke briefly with her after the event to confirm the following facts.

TXDOT conducted a study estimating how much it will cost the department (in current dollars) merely to maintain current levels of highway congestion through the year 2030. The study took into account projected population increases and all costs of necessary new projects and normal maintenance.

The estimated cost merely to maintain the status quo is $315 billion. To help you appreciate the significance of that number, TXDOT currently spends roughly $3 billion per year on new construction projects. If continued at the same rate for the next 20 years, that would supply $60 billion of the needed total. Put another way, our current rate of spending on new projects would pay for 19.04% of the amount we need to keep our intolerable traffic congestion from getting any worse.

"Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink...."
                                "Rime of the Ancient Mariner",  Samuel Taylor Coleridge

The story of Texas is written around the bodies of potable water which defined where people could survive the harsh climate.

I grew up on a farm outside Abilene, where the water was decidedly tinged with the red clay of that region. In fact. we had to create our own water system on the farm, sharing the same water from our pond where our horses and cattle drank. We pumped it to the house into 2,000 gallon settling tanks and added clorox bleach to kill the bacteria. It still looked a little cloudy and red in the bathtub, but it beat the heck out of not having water on the farm.

We once had a "dry hole" drilled on our farm by an oil company seeking black gold. (No oil, no money, no joy). I can still remember the sorrowful look on the driller's face when he told my father he'd hit a lake of salt water at a depth of around 4,500 feet. Salt water. Good for nothing. It posed a danger to future crops if the well ever leaked that foul saline solution at the surface. These kinds of "dry holes" are all over west Texas--thousands of them.

Earlier this week, in one of the most interesting meetings I've had in years, I listened to a young Aggie engineer (judging by the gold ring) weave a tale of technology which sounded more like wizardry than science, but he wasn't spinning his yarn about "Pie in the sky in the sweet bye and bye," but about current technologies which have the power to transform west Texas into a land of a thousand oases.

Imagine desalination technology aimed at Texas salt-infused groundwater and our brackish rivers, powered in the day by solar panels, and wind generators scaled to the power needed, salt water pumped to the surface by the same power sources, producing rivers of potable water, and tons of salt that would be marketed to northeastern states to melt snow encrusted roadways,. The potable water could cost as little to produce as $3/thousand gallons.

Do you think a proposition like that might find some takers west of I-35?

The folks talking about these possibilities with me over lunch are already desalinating water in Texas, and they say the near-fairy tale I just mentioned above could be producing potable water and 100% marketable by-products using fully renewable energy sources and current off-the-shelf technology right now.

I have much more research to do, but I expect to return to this subject. Soon.