Texas Prop 8 Going Down - what's the future of water?

[scott]

Looks like Prop 8 is going down. Basically it would have extended a portion of the code that allows for certain property tax breaks to be extended for certain land uses *if* certain water conservation measures were taken. Basically... a tax incentive for conserving water.

Here is a pretty good write up:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Texas_Water-Stewardship_Tax_Amendment,_Proposition_8_(2011)

I'm rather surprised this one is going down, as there hasn't been very much outspoken opposition (and it's difficult to understand why there is opposition... one argument is it allows government intervention into your water usage... but you could always just use more water and not get your tax break).

So, what is the future of water in Texas?

[scott]

A little more background:

The original measure passed the Lege this past session 135-7 in the House and 30-1 in the Senate. That's about as unanimous you can get in Texas outside of a "Bill Pronouncing How Super Duper Texas Is"

[Nbadan]

"Bill Pronouncing How Super Duper Texas Is"

:lol

Or "in God we trust"

[Nbadan]

Water rights...if you don't have them...get them..

[scott]

From the link I provided (which is now fixed):


Texas Eagle Forum, a conservative and pro-family advocacy organization, opposes Proposition 8. In an October 7th, 2011 post they explained their reasoning: "This amendment was promoted by the radical environmental group Nature Conservancy. These environmentalists want to take away water rights from private property owners. Any landowner willing to take this new exemption will soon have the state dictating how their water is managed."

Uhhhhh... okay?

Never seen such an odd reaction to a tax break from Conservatives before.

The only notable media opposition was from Paul Burka of Texas Monthly... who I see classified as a liberal a lot by conservatives.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, this one was a no brainer from a conservation standpoint but there are always winners and losers in tax abatements...

Looking at it rationally opponents would be school districts or the unions that work for them that would have been the biggest voting block to kill it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Looking at it rationally opponents would be school districts or the unions that work for them that would have been the biggest voting block to kill it.

No, thats called looking at it like you do. I'm surprised you didn't bring in talk of the poor.

[scott]

Yeah, this one was a no brainer from a conservation standpoint but there are always winners and losers in tax abatements...

Looking at it rationally opponents would be school districts or the unions that work for them that would have been the biggest voting block to kill it.

While Fiscal Notes from the Comptrollers' Office are rarely perfect, this Fiscal Note on the original Lege measure showed that it would not have a significant impact on the state's revenues, and in my professional opinion this would be a prime example of where any tax abatements generated would be more than offset by a widened tax base (since we aren't talking about a trickle-down... water is pretty necessary from the most basic agricultural levels).

I didn't hear a lot of publicity in general about this Proposition, and I'm curious if perhaps the wording of the Prop alone is what drove some folks to vote against it (since almost all major media outlets in the state recommended voting yes on all 10 ammendments).

The language of the prop found on the ballot:


"The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water-stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity."

That sounds like it could be a tax increase, which most people would vote against.

[CosmicCowboy]

While Fiscal Notes from the Comptrollers' Office are rarely perfect, this Fiscal Note on the original Lege measure showed that it would not have a significant impact on the state's revenues, and in my professional opinion this would be a prime example of where any tax abatements generated would be more than offset by a widened tax base (since we aren't talking about a trickle-down... water is pretty necessary from the most basic agricultural levels).

I didn't hear a lot of publicity in general about this Proposition, and I'm curious if perhaps the wording of the Prop alone is what drove some folks to vote against it (since almost all major media outlets in the state recommended voting yes on all 10 ammendments).

The language of the prop found on the ballot:



That sounds like it could be a tax increase, which most people would vote against.

You may be right...I certainly don't think it was a conservative conspiracy that is against water conservation. I'm an active member of TWA that supported this amendment.

[CosmicCowboy]

No, thats called looking at it like you do. I'm surprised you didn't bring in talk of the poor.

Your stupid is showing.


again


get back on the porch and let the adults chat.

[ploto]

That sounds like it could be a tax increase, which most people would vote against.

Some people probably saw the words appraisal and tax and voted against it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your stupid is showing.


again


get back on the porch and let the adults chat.

So your saying you do not find entitlements and unions at the core of your political outlook?

[CosmicCowboy]

So your saying you do not find entitlements and unions at the core of your political outlook?

Fucking idiot

We were speculating on how a good proposition got defeated.

that is all.

[ElNono]

Perhaps it didn't pass because people envision a future like in the movie Water World. If you're open minded, you would know its a possibility.
/WC

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fucking idiot

We were speculating on how a good proposition got defeated.

that is all.

And you speculated that it was the school district or the unions right? How was it defeated? Your first thought includes unions. Calling me dumb does not change that.

[coyotes_geek]

"The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water-stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity."

That is pretty poor wording. I can easily see 4% of voters getting confused here and thinking this was a tax increase.

[boutons_deux]

"pretty poor wording."

That's what lawyers are paid by politicians to do: spew verbiage that normal people can't understand or misunderstand or say WTF is that?

It's not even a sentence.

[johnsmith]

"pretty poor wording."

That's what lawyers are paid by politicians to do: spew verbiage that normal people can't understand or misunderstand or say WTF is that?

It's not even a sentence.

You mean the way normal people can't generally understand a fucking thing you type on this site?

Wait, are you a "lawyer paid by a politician"?

I knew it.

[boutons_deux]

Gfy

[johnsmith]

And LOL at you being upset at "it's not even a sentence".

You and Ducks should get together and write a book.

[boutons_deux]

upset? I made a statement, aka, a sentence. GFY

[RandomGuy]

FWIW, I voted for it. Seems like an excellent idea.

With the right mix of native plants/grasses, you can really maximize the amount of water that reaches an aquifer.

With the wrong mix, 99% of rainfall just runs off, making erosion far worse.

Have to find a link to the ranch my wife visited as part of her biology degree. Awesome background material.

[RandomGuy]

The language of the prop found on the ballot:



That sounds like it could be a tax increase, which most people would vote against.

Yup.

Funny how important the wording can be to your average voter who doesn't see this shit until he/she is in the voting booth.

LWV for the win.