The Texas Observer

The Sierra Club has a new report out called America’s Wild Legacy. The report highlights 52 exceptional wild places, one in each state plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, where people are fighting for land that’s threatened.

For Texas it lists the Neches River. The 235-mile river flows between Lake Palestine and Ba-Steinhagen Lake and is the longest in Texas. It also is one of the few that features wild areas that are largely unchanged since the time before settlers descended on Texas, according to the report. But the Neches is threatened by a proposal to build a dam. Despite a fierce fight during the session, the Lege gave approval to start moving forward on the Fastrill Dam. But conservationists are not through yet. “Sierra Club is working with the Texas Committee on Natural Resources to designate the Neches River as a National Wildlife Refuge Area and National Scenic River, which would help protect it from destructive dam building,” the report reads.

It seems to be that every year there is another report from some conservation group about an imperiled Texas river. I asked a friend at the Sierra Club about that and got a late-night response from Ken Kramer, who heads the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Ken noted that the group American Rivers has, since 1986, released an annual report on the ten most endangered rivers. During the past ten years, five Texas rivers have landed on the list:

Neches (2007) - Through litigation against the U. S. Department of the Interior, filed early this year, the City of Dallas and Texas Water Development Board tried to stymie the creation of the Neches River National Wildlife Refuge so that the area is available for the construction of the proposed Fastrill Reservoir.

San Jacinto (2006) – The threat is unregulated mining of sand and gravel from the river. The problem was recognized to some extent this past spring by the Texas Legislature’s passage of legislation representing some initial steps to address the problem.

Rio Grande (2003 and 2000) – During at least two periods of time in the last several years the Rio Grande has stopped flowing to the Gulf of Mexico for a variety of reasons.

Trinity (2003) – The threat was the U.S. Corps of Engineers Dallas Floodway Extension, which would destroy 34,000 trees in the Trinity floodplain, damage instream habitat through realignment of the river channel, further degrade the river through increased erosion and siltation caused by water exiting the floodway at high velocities, and turn a remarkable urban open space into a congested and polluted transportation artery.

Guadalupe (2002) - The threat was the proposed Lower Guadalupe Water Transfer Project that would have diverted large amounts of water from the river near its mouth, affecting freshwater inflows to San Antonio Bay and thus possibly affecting the blue crab population (a basic food for the endangered Whooping Crane).

“No Texas river was on the list for 2005, 2004, 2001, 1999, 1998, or 1997,” Ken wrote. “The Rio Grande appeared on a couple of previous annual lists of the ten most endangered, and the San Jacinto and Trinity appeared previously on some American Rivers lists of “threatened” (contrasted to “endangered”) rivers.

“If it appears that there’s yet another Texas river on the most endangered list every year – which, in fact, is not exactly the case, yet – it’s because there is increasing pressure on Texas rivers from growing municipal water use demands, land development projects, reservoir proposals, and the failure of so many public officials to understand the value of naturally flowing rivers for fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, and other purposes.

“At least the Texas Legislature in 2007 recognized the value of environmental flows through the passage of HB 3 and Article 1 of SB 3 (although the latter legislation unfortunately included the reservoir site designation provisions, which means that there are likely to be more Texas rivers showing up on endangered lists if those reservoir projects are actually pursued).”

“It is a new day for energy in America,” said David Crane, the CEO of NRG Energy, this week. Actually it was just another muggy Monday in Washington, D.C., but for an industry whose “renaissance” has been dished on ceaselessly by journalists and predicted hopefully by its boosters, it was a Very Good Day. This week NRG Energy and San Antonio’s CPS Energy turned in an application to the feds for what could be the first new nuclear power plant in the U.S. since the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. The first of many to come, the industry hopes.

The huge 2,700 megawatt, $5.2 billion plant is slated for Bay City, where NRG runs the South Texas Project, a nuke station that was plagued by cost overruns, lawsuits, and countless delays. Ratepayers are still paying for that boondoggle. (See the plant on Google Maps.)

Texas, it seems, has been deemed by our betters ground zero for the nuclear comeback. In addition to NRG, three other companies - TXU, Amarillo Power, and Exelon - have announced plans to pursue new nuclear power plants. An exploding population, a hands-off regulatory system, and a general unwillingness to pursue aggressive conservation programs have made the state attractive.

There are many reasons for this comeback, not least the billions in freebies Congress and the Bush administration are offering investors. But the one reason most in need of some healthy fact-checking and skepticism is that nukes are a panacea for climate change. The subtitle of NRG’s press release reads in part, “Plant will produce no greenhouse gas emissions.” This line is being repeated endlessly by credulous reporters and pundits. But is it true? Well, sort of.

Unlike coal-fired power station, a nuclear plant does in fact emit no carbon. However, the full life-cycle of nuclear power tells a different story. Uranium, the fuel for nuke power, must be mined. That process requires enormous diesel machinery, which belch carbon like nobody’s business. (Uranium mining also has other serious environmental consequences. Just ask the folks in Goliad.) Then the uranium ore has to be enriched, an energy-intensive process itself.

By the time the electricity is on the way to your home - and the radioactive waste is preparing for its very long lifespan - 33 grams of coal have been emitted for every kilowatt-hour of power, according to a study by the Oko Institute. That compares favorably with coal (about 900 grams) but not so well with wind, solar, and biomass energy. Certainly it puts the lie to the idea that nuclear energy has no greenhouse gas output.

Even if nuclear was truly carbon-free, it offers little hope for dealing with climate change when it needs to be dealt with - now. Rebecca Solnit, writing in Orion, explains:

Still, the biggest stumbling block, where climate change is concerned, is that it takes a decade or more to construct a nuclear plant, even if the permitting process goes smoothly, which it often does not. So a bunch of nuclear power plants that go online in 2017 at the earliest are not even terribly relevant to turning around our carbon emissions in the next decade—which is the time frame we have before it’s too late.

Then there are the problematic economics of using nuclear power as a replacement for other energy sources. John M. Deutch and Ernest J. Moniz, professors at MIT, have estimated that the world needs one terawatt - or one million megawatts - of carbon-free power to take make a dent in carbon dioxide emissions by mid-century. That would require, by my back-of-the-envelope calculations, 740 new nuclear reactors the size of NRG’s planned units. That’s three big new nuke plants every two months for the next 41 years. The cost of this building bonanza would come to $2 trillion, according to Deutch and Moniz. It’s an enormous undertaking for a technology that has already had 50 years to overcome its shortfalls.

Here’s the take-home lesson: In the months and years ahead, we’re going to hear a lot about how nukes are green, how we can fight climate change by siting a power plant in our town. Let’s try not to get greenwashed to death.

Word broke early Wednesday afternoon that Texas’ first couple have settled on a home away from home while the Texas Governor’s Mansion is renovated. It’s a cozy pad — only five bedrooms and five bathrooms, three stories, and one pool — and one measely guest house, and, oh yeah, a cabana house.

It will cost the state of Texas $9,900 per month starting Oct. 1. The official tenant on the lease is “The State of Texas” and the lease is signed by Ed Johnson, the executive director of the Texas Facilities Commission.

Rick and Anita have a year lease on the home with a month-to-month option thereafter. It is located in what can only be called unincorporated Austin — technically Travis County — just west of Westlake Hills nestled between golf courses. It’s a ritzy, gated community.

The fact that the house is not located inside the Austin city limits seems contrary to the directive in the Texas Constitution which states:

Sec. 13. RESIDENCE OF GOVERNOR. During the session of the Legislature the Governor shall reside where its sessions are held, and at all other times at the seat of Government, except when by act of the Legislature, he may be required or authorized to reside elsewhere.

Perry’s office said Wednesday they interpreted “seat of government” to mean “Austin” — but when it was pointed out that it’s not technically in the city, a spokesperson said that Barton Creek was certainly a part of Austin. It’s a minor point and all, but the law is the law…

As we have said, it sours the stomach that Texas taxpayers are bearing the cost and the estimated $10 million it will take to have the pipes fixed back at the mansion — for Mr. 39%. Come on, Rick. We know you have it. Why don’t you offer to pay half?

The pet deposit (for a rambunctious, five-and-a-half-year-old Dachsund) is listed on the lease at $1,800. Somebody is getting ripped off here, and I don’t think it’s the Perrys.

So it comes down to this: Does President Bush possess the gall and political temerity to cut health care for poor kids?

The U.S. House passed a bill last night to expand the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program. The vote was 265-159. (Senate approval is expected later this week.) Forty-five House Republicans defied the White House to support the bill. Still, it’s not anywhere near the 290 votes needed to override a Bush veto.

Bush’s opposition is purely ideological. This Washington Post story debunks the White House’s reasons for opposing CHIP. After all, the program is fiscally conservative. It aids working families and helps keep them off welfare. And, by providing kids insurance and preventive care, CHIP saves money in the long run. No matter. For Bush, CHIP has always represented government health care. So he’s never been a big fan.

If he does veto CHIP, and Congress fails to override — as now appears likely — then the White House will have leverage to negotiate a much smaller CHIP expansion. The current Congressional bill would cover roughly 3.5 million uninsured kids. A veto — and the subsequent compromise — would likely deprive health insurance from hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of children.

The GOP would likely suffer as well. As we’ve observed in this space before, Texas Republicans have learned the hard way that cutting CHIP carries a political price. How many vulnerable Republican House members will see this kind of ad in 2008 thanks to the White House’s stubbornness.

Rep. Ray LaHood nailed it. “I’m a little baffled as to why the Bush people picked this issue to fight it out on,” the conservative Illinois Republican told the Post. “It’s very sensitive. It’s about kids. Who’s against kids’ health care?”

George W. Bush is about to let us know.

The State of Texas has a strict policy against gaming, especially by Native American tribes, for profit.

The Tigua tribe of El Paso saw its Speaking Rock Casino closed down in 2002 thanks to the efforts of the Texas Attorney General at the time, (now U.S. Senator) John Cornyn. The Alabama-Coushatta tribe in East Texas also sought the legal right to run a gambling enterprise, but to no avail. Yes, gambling in Texas remains unsullied by tribes operating casinos. If you’re not a foreign company with a contract to run the Texas Lottery, you can pretty much forget about legally making money off of gambling in the Lone Star State.

However — if you happen to be a retired Texas teacher, you may be about to get a piece of the action. In late July, the board of the Teacher Retirement System (TRS), voted to put up to $100 million of its $112 billion retirement fund into a company called Colony Capital, LLP — which, the board says, will use the money along with cash from other investors and pension funds to acquire Station Casinos — a “Native American gaming management company” with a casino in Las Vegas. While you’re there, be sure and visit the Texas Station.

Now, why would the TRS board sanction such an investment? The simple reason is that funds like TRS are charged with finding the best return on their investment. In fact, Texas pays TRS investment professionals a hefty annual salary, plus bonuses to do just that. And the return on the casino investment for TRS is expected to be a whopping 19 percent annually for six years.

I mean, if that’s not sound investing, then what is? It’s not like the casino industry is tanking.

The problem here is the evident hypocrisy of Texas’ public trusts benefiting from Native American gambling enterprises while the state denies its own tribes the right to run their own gambling operations. Why is it okay for Texas teachers to fund their retirement in part from the profits of a Vegas casino, but it’s not acceptable for Texas tribes to employ people and build communities by running casinos on their lands?

Now, we’re aware of the dangers involved in the sin part of sin taxes, but wasn’t it Jesus who said, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

The U.S. House will take a key vote today on the future of the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program.

House-Senate negotiators struck a compromise late last week on a bill to renew CHIP. It would increase funding for the program by $35 billion over five years, enough to provide coverage for roughly three million uninsured kids. (For all you wonks out there, you can read more details on the bill here.) It has gained some significant Republican support. Without reauthorization, CHIP will expire on Sunday. If a bill doesn’t pass by the end of the week, Congress can temporarily extend the program.

Of course, President Bush has threatened to veto the bill. Bush has been arguing for a week that if Democrats force him to veto CHIP, it won’t be his fault.

The veto threat makes today’s House vote worth watching. The bill will almost assuredly pass. The question is by how much. It requires two-thirds of the House (290 votes) to override a presidential veto. The Senate reportedly has enough votes. If House Democratic leaders can woo enough GOP support to get close to the veto-proof majority, they can render Bush moot on the issue.

If not, it’s back to the negotiating table with a White House that’s been pretty stingy on health insurance for kids lately.

Thanks to the Rio Grande Guardian for letting us know that today the Department of Homeland Security advertised its plans in the Federal Register for almost 70 miles of fencing along the Texas Mexico border.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Office of Border Patrol (OBP) is preparing Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and Environmental Assessments (EAs) to identify and assess the potential environmental impacts associated with proposed construction and operation of tactical infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico international border (the Proposed Actions). The tactical infrastructure includes primary fence and patrol roads.

Tactical infrastructure indeed. The EIS and EAs provide time for comment. But as Mary Jo McConahay explains in her recent Observer story Habitat for Inanity, the move toward the fence will likely end up in court.