Mob Grazing is the current hot topic among progressive grass farmers looking for the path to profitable ranching operations. Many of ranchers operating on the leading edge realize that the higher stock densities of the 1980’s and 90’s are evolving to ultra high stock density, as graziers discover the benefits of up to 500,000 pounds of cattle per acre!

The benefits? Missouri cattleman Greg Judy practices the ultra high stock density planned grazing—or mob grazing—taught to him by South African rancher and grazing guru Ian Mitchell-Innes. Judy was quoted by Kit Pharo in his Pharo Cattle Company May/June 07 newsletter (http://www.pharocattle.com/newsletters.htm), “The results have been mind boggling!
• We have already increased annual forage production by close to 400%!
• The grass roots are thicker, deeper and healthier.
• We have improved the diversity of our grasses and legumes, while eliminating most of our weed problems.
• The soil is coming alive with earthworms, microbial activity and dung beetles.
• Manure distribution is unbelievable.
• Since we catch and utilize every drop of rain, droughts are no longer a problem.”

Ian Mitchell-Innes is no stranger to drought, ranching in drought-stricken South Africa, South with its seasonally erratic rainfall and widely variable weather patterns.
Ian's ranch has an average rainfall of 36" and measures 7.5 on the Brittleness Scale. He says, “High Density Grazing and Holistic Grazing Planning have resulted in such an increased production and palatability of grass that half the ranch has been leased out for three years. This is despite the country being in the worst drought of 40 years. The utilization of the available grass has improved to the point of having to bring in more cattle to prepare the ground for spring.”

But will it work here? While we don’t yet know of Texas ranchers using this ultra high stock density, we have heard that Montana ranchers, Bill Jones and now his son Zachary, graze their high arid land (13 inch annual rainfall) at about 11 acres per animal unit, more than double their old stocking rate, with half the labor and inputs and fantastic forage production—increases expected to climb to 350% as they increase the number of cattle even more.

Show me the money! More product with less inputs and less labor, with more rest creating more forage almost has to translate to more income.

Ian Mitchell-Innes is a Holistic Management Certified Educator with the presence and experience to teach all aspects of successful ranching and land management. HMI-Texas is taking full advantage of his trip to the states this fall with scheduled 2-day intensive classes in both biological monitoring and land planning, in addition to the 1-day mob grazing workshop.

HM Biological Monitoring Class
• October 25-26 (a weekend)
• at Running High Ranch in Montague County not far from Bowie, Texas.
This is a lovely facility on about 6300 acres with a variety of land to experience.
• Biological monitoring is how holistic managers guide the land to perform in the desired ways in motion toward the goal. This includes an awareness of the general condition of the land as revealed by the four ecosystem processes and how the tools applied will affect them, an assessment of the soil surface and the life just below and above it, and if grazing livestock, an assessment of the animal performance and the effect of their actions on the land.
• Space is limited to the first 30 people to register.

HM Land Planning Class
• October 27-28
• at Running High Ranch in Montague County not far from Bowie, Texas
• Designing the infrastructure of your land to support the activities in your goal. To keep animals moving continually requires new thinking about the way fencing, water points, roads and handling facilities are laid out. A holistic land plan represents the marriage of a holistic goal and step-by-step practice, one step making the next step possible as the land plan is gradually implemented over time.
• Space is limited to the first 30 people to register.

Mob Grazing Workshop
• Wednesday, October 29, 2008
• Decatur Civic Center, Decatur, TX
• Register immediately to reserve you space.

Cost to attend:
• HM Biological Monitoring or HM Land Planning $450 ($800 couple)
• or both classes for $800 ($1,300 couple).
• Mob Grazing is $100.
• A couple is 2 people from the same operation.
• HMI-Texas members take 10% off all classes.
• Call or email Jeanie Dreinhofer (jdreinhofer@hrm-texas.org or 325-348-3014).

June 5, 2007

Texas High Court Ruling Favors Guitar In Historic Water Case

By Colleen Schreiber

AUSTIN ˜ Last Friday the Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling in Guitar Holding Company L.P. v. Hudspeth County Underground Water Conservation District No. 1, et al. It was touted to be the most historic groundwater case since Sipriano in 1999.

The high court ruled for the Guitar family, saying in essence that the Hudspeth UWCD's rules are invalid ˜ specifically, that the district's rules allowing the transfer of historic use permits without complying with pumping limits for new users are invalid.

The unanimous opinion was delivered by Justice David Medina. In the opinion, Medina wrote, "The court of appeals upheld the District's permitting scheme, concluding, in effect, that the District's authority to preserve the 'historic or existing use' of groundwater pertained only to the amount of water used in the past and not its purpose. We conclude, however, that the amount of groundwater used and its beneficial purpose are components of historic and existing use' and that the District thus exceeded its rule-making authority in grandfathering existing wells without regard for both."

The court is essentially saying that a protected historic use permit may only be used for what it was originally intended ˜ in this case, for irrigating cropland. That means transferring water out of the district is in fact a "new" use different from historic use.

Medina wrote: "Rather than protect historic or existing use, then, the District's transfer rules, in essence, grant franchises to some landowners to export water while denying that right to others. Because the limitations are not uniformly applied to these new applications and are not necessary to protect existing use, the District's transfer rules exceed the statutory authorization and are thus invalid."

Russ Johnson of McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore in Austin and attorney for the Guitar family, was obviously pleased with the high court's ruling, saying that it protects the property rights of all landowners who have water beneath their land.

"The water districts can still exempt historic users from new pumping limitations, but those historic users no longer have a perpetual right to that water for any use, any place, any time. That's really what this decision stands for," Johnson says.

"What this ruling in essence means is that groundwater districts are not permitted under the guise of protecting historic use to allow that use to be converted to new use or location without complying with whatever overall rules they have for everyone else."

Johnson deems the ruling "historic" because it is the first case whereby the Texas Supreme Court has struck down a groundwater district's rules as being in excess of their statutory authority.

"This ruling prevents water districts from deciding winners and losers," Johnson reiterates.

The attorney for the Guitar family also contends that the high court ruling is positive from a water policy perspective.

"Prior to this decision, the only way to protect your future right to produce groundwater was to use it," Johnson reminds. "What the state is saying with this ruling is that landowners are not going to be punished in terms of access for conserving the water resource by not using it. Now all landowners' rights are on equal footing when it comes to any kind of new use, and if there is a revenue to be generated from this resource through a water marketing scheme, then all landowners potentially have a right to share in that scheme."

The court's ruling did not address the bigger question ˜ whether or not there is an ownership interest in groundwater ˜ though Johnson reminds that the ownership of water was not at issue.

"I would say it was almost a tacit acknowledgement that these rules exceeded the purpose of protecting historic use to the detriment of the Guitar family. They didn't have to specifically clarify ownership rights to reach the ruling that they did, but it's kind of implicit in the ruling," Johnson remarks. "I think it's a good sign; it's helpful for the argument of ownership, and not, as some contend, that the groundwater is owned by no one."

Ultimately, because the court struck down the district's rules, the district will have to rewrite its rules so they are consistent with the Supreme Court opinion. How the district will rewrite the rules and what the rules will ultimately mean for the Guitar family and other landowners in the district is anyone's guess.

In a press release issued earlier this week, the water district said it will take all appropriate steps to fully comply with this ruling.

At this point, the matter is still pending at the Supreme Court. While awaiting the return of these matters to the District for further proceedings, the District will evaluate the opinion and confer with its engineering and attorney consultants to prepare for subsequent events and actions, the press release said.

The district and others have 15 days from the date the opinion was issued to file a motion for rehearing.

"We have only won a battle," Johnson concludes."We have not won the war."

June 7, 2008

Water-Starved California Slows Development

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
PERRIS, Calif. California faces one of its worst droughts in two decades, building projects are being curtailed for the first time under state law by the inability of developers to find long-term water supplies.

Water authorities and other government agencies scattered throughout the state, including here in sprawling Riverside County, east of Los Angeles, have begun denying, delaying or challenging authorization for dozens of housing tracts and other developments under a state law that requires a 20-year water supply as a condition for building.

California officials suggested that the actions were only the beginning, and they worry about the impact on a state that has grown into an economic powerhouse over the last several decades.

The state law was enacted in 2001, but until statewide water shortages, it had not been invoked to hold up projects.
While previous droughts and supply problems have led to severe water cutbacks and rationing, water officials said the outright refusal to sign off on projects over water scarcity had until now been virtually unheard of on a statewide scale.
"Businesses are telling us that they can't get things done because of water," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a telephone interview.

On Wednesday, Mr. Schwarzenegger declared an official statewide drought, the first such designation since 1991. As the governor was making his drought announcement, the Eastern Municipal Water District in Riverside County ˜ one of the fastest-growing counties in the state in recent years ˜ gave a provisional nod to nine projects that it had held up for months because of water concerns. The approval came with the caveat that the water district could revisit its decision, and only after adjustments had been made to the plans to reduce water demand.

"The statement that we're making is that this isn't business as usual," said Randy A. Record, a water district board member, at the meeting here in Perris.

Shawn Jenkins, a developer who had two projects caught up in the delays, said he was accustomed to piles of paperwork and reams of red tape in getting projects approved. But he was not prepared to have the water district hold up the projects he was planning. He changed the projects' landscaping, to make it less water dependent, as the board pondered their fate.
"I think this is a warning for everyone," Mr. Jenkins said.

Also in Riverside County, a superior court judge recently stopped a 1,500-home development project, citing, among others things, a failure to provide substantial evidence of adequate water supply.

In San Luis Obispo County, north of Los Angeles, the City of Pismo Beach was recently denied the right to annex unincorporated land to build a large multipurpose project because, "the city didn't have enough water to adequately serve the development," said Paul Hood, the executive officer of the commission that approves the annexations and incorporations of cities.

In agriculturally rich Kern County, north of Los Angeles, at least three developers scrapped plans recently to apply for permits, realizing water was going to be an issue. An official from the county's planning department said the developers were the first ever in the county to be stymied by water concerns. Large-scale housing developments in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties have met a similar fate, officials in those counties said.

Throughout the state, other projects have been suspended or are being revised to accommodate water shortages, and water authorities and cities have increasingly begun to consider holding off on "will-serve" letters ˜ promises to developers to provide water ˜ for new projects.

"The water in our state is not sufficient to add more demand," said Lester Snow, the director of the California Department of Water Resources. "And that now means that some large development can't go forward. If we don't make changes with water, we are going to have a major economic problem in this state."

The words "crisis" and "water" have gone together in this state since the 49ers traded flecks of gold for food. But several factors have combined to make the current water crisis more acute than those of recent years.

An eight-year drought in the Colorado River basin has greatly impinged on water supply to Southern California. Of the roughly 1.25 million acre-feet of water that the region normally imports from that river toward the 4.5 million acre-feet it uses each year, 500,000 has been lost to drought, said Jeff Kightlinger, the general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Even more significant, a judge in federal district court last year issued a curtailment in pumping from the California Delta ˜ where the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers meet and provide water to roughly 25 million Californians ˜ to protect a species of endangered smelt that were becoming trapped in the pumps. Those reductions, from December to June, cut back the state's water reserves this winter by about one third, according to a consortium of state water boards.
The smelt problem was a powerful indicator of the environmental fallout from the delta's water system, which was constructed over 50 years ago for a far smaller population.

"We have bad hydrology, compromised infrastructure and our management tools are broken," said Timothy Quinn, the executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. "All that paints a fairly grim picture for Californians trying to manage water in the 21st century."

The 2001 state water law, which took effect in 2002, requires developers to prove that new projects have a plan for providing at least 20 years' worth of water before local water authorities can sign off on them. With the recent problems, more and more local governments are unable to simply approve projects.

"Water is one of our most difficult issues when we are evaluating large-scale projects," said Lorelei Oviatt, the division chief for the Kern County Planning Department. In cases where developers are unable to present a long-term water plan, "then certainly I can't recommend they approve" those developments, Ms. Oviatt said.

As the denied building permits indicate, the lack of sufficient water sources could become a serious threat to economic development in California, where the population in 2020 is projected to reach roughly 45 million people, economists say, from its current 38 million. In the end, as water becomes increasingly scarce, its price will have to rise, bringing with it a host of economic consequences, the economists said.

"Water has been seriously under-priced in California," said Edward E. Leamer, a professor at the Anderson School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. "When you ration it or increase its price, it will have an impact on economic growth."

The water authority for Southern California recently issued a rate increase of 14.3 percent, when including surcharges, which was the highest rate increase in the last 15 years. In Northern California, rates in Marin County increased recently by nearly 10 percent, in part to pay an 11 percent increase in the cost of water bought from neighboring Sonoma County.
Interest groups that oppose development have found that raising water issues is among the many bats in their bags available to beat back projects they find distasteful.

"Certainly from Newhall Ranch's standpoint, water was a key point that our opponents were focused on," said Marlee Lauffer, a spokeswoman for Newhall Ranch, a large-scale residential development in the works is Santa Clarita, north of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles, among others, has opposed the development.

To get around the problem, Newhall Ranch's planners decided to forgo water supplied through the state and turn instead to supplies from an extensive water reclamation plant as well as water bought privately. Other developers, like Mr. Jenkins, have changed their landscaping plans to reduce water needs and planned for low-flow plumbing to placate water boards.
Mr. Schwarzenegger sees addressing the state's water problem as one of his key goals, and he is hoping against the odds to get a proposed $11.9 billion bond for water management investments through the Legislature and before voters in November.

The plans calls for water conservation and quality improvement programs, as well as a resource management plan for the delta. Among its most controversial components is $3.5 billion earmarked for new water storage, something that environmentalists have vehemently opposed, in part because they find dams and storage facilities environmentally unsound and not cost effective.

The critics also point out that the state's agriculture industry, which uses far more water than urban areas, is being asked to contribute little to conservation under the governor's plans. As more building projects are derailed by water requirements, the pressure on farmers to share more of their water is expected to grow.

By Zeke MacCormack
zeke@express-news.net

State legislators have a new special interest group knocking on their doors, a coalition of 15 Hill Country counties that wants bills passed to boost their authority over development.

The Hill Country Coalition of Counties members share concerns about the detrimental effects of rapid growth on water availability, traffic, drainage, the environment and budgets.

They hope that presenting a united front for their more than 524,000 combined residents will erode the Legislature's resistance to expanding the statutory authority of counties.

“If we can speak with one voice, that's a positive,” Kerr County Commissioner Jonathan Letz said. “It gives the counties more clout.”

He raised the coalition's concerns last week in a meeting with Janice McCoy, chief of staff to Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay.

“We're going to be looking at their issues next session to see what we can or cannot do,” McCoy said Friday.

The group also plans to host legislators June 27 in San Marcos to spell out its proposals.

“We all have the same problems, and each county needs the ability to solve them in the best way for their county,” Hays County Judge Liz Sumter said.

Their top concern is getting authority to set density limits on new growth, which would help control aquifer usage, traffic, drainage and flooding.

“Counties need the authority to control density because of groundwater scarcity,” Sumter said. “We don't want to have well after well after well. Wells close together drain the aquifer more quickly.”

The group also wants authority to assess impact fees on builders of new subdivisions to help fund the cost of infrastructure upgrades needed to serve the new residents.

Reviving a proposal that was shot down in the last session of the Legislature, it also wants the power to require buffer areas between existing neighborhoods and incompatible commercial uses proposed nearby.

Comal County Commissioner Jay Millikin said new rock quarries there highlight the need for a buffer zone bill.

“We're being inundated with rock quarries, and I don't have any way to protect people who live in an established subdivision from a rock quarry moving in right next door,” he said.

The platform is also drawn from a bill sought by Kendall County two years ago that would let counties dictate the number of housing units per acre, set requirements for centralized water and sewer systems, dictate open space set-asides by developers and more.

“We've been lacking in authority, and handicapped by that lack for so long, maybe this is the way to do it,” Kendall County Commissioner Gene Miertschin said. “Instead of just one county going up there and pounding on the legislators' desks, if 15 counties go up there, maybe they'll get the message that there's really some need.”

That approach has worked for 25 counties in the Abilene area that aligned in 1994 as the Texas Midwest Community Network, said Nicki Harle, the group's director.

“I think they listen and hear more of us by us talking together,” she said of legislators.

The new coalition members range in population from Edwards County, with about 2,000 residents, to Hays County, with more than 141,000.

Its other Hill Country members, and their 2007 populations, are Bandera (20,197), Comal (105,187) Kendall (31,342), Mason (3,890), Kimble (4,461), Llano (18,394), Blanco (9,067), Uvalde (26,581), Medina (43,826), Gillespie (23,507), Burnet (43,689), Kerr (47,860) and Real (2,965).

Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA060808.METRO.EN.3898a64.html

Senior Executive Editor, Texas Monthly

Monday, June 2, 2008

The Trans-Texas Corridor is Deader than a Doornail

First, here is Tx-DOT's official release following the meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission last Thursday, which I attended:

Texas Transportation Commission Affirms Toll Road Building Principles

AUSTIN, Texas, May 29 ˜ The Texas Transportation Commission today adopted guiding principles and policies that will govern the development, construction and operation of toll road projects on the state highway system and the Trans-Texas Corridor.

The Commission's unanimous vote reaffirms policies and the requirements of state law regarding toll projects, particularly involving the use of comprehensive development agreements (CDA).

"The Commission's action today reflects the comments we have received from Texas drivers, legislators and members of our citizen advisory committees," said Commission Chair Deirdre Delisi. "Texans deserve a clear, straightforward explanation of what we are doing to solve our transportation challenges and how we are doing it."

The Texas Transportation Commission is a five-member board appointed by the Governor to oversee the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

The Commission reaffirmed its commitment to meet or exceed the requirements of state law on five key issues:

ˆ All state highway facilities, including the Trans-Texas Corridor, will be completely owned by the State of Texas at all times.

ˆ All Comprehensive Development Agreements will include provisions that allow TxDOT to purchase or "buy back" the interest of a private developer in a CDA at any time if buying back the project would be in the best financial interest of the state.

ˆ The Texas Transportation Commission shall approve, in a public meeting, the initial toll rates charged for the use of a toll project on the state highway system and the methodology for increasing the amount of tolls. All rate-setting actions will come after consultation with
appropriate local metropolitan planning organizations.

ˆ Only new lanes added to an existing highway will be tolled, and there will be no reduction in the number of non-tolled lanes that exist today.

ˆ Comprehensive development agreements will not include "non-compete" clauses that would prohibit improvements to existing roadways. The Department and any governmental entity can construct, reconstruct, expand, rehabilitate or maintain any roadway that is near or intersects with any roadway under the CDA.

In recognition of the Texas Legislature's commitment to protecting landowners' property rights and in following the department's long-standing practice with other transportation projects, the commission affirmed two additional principles:

ˆ TxDOT will always consider the use of existing right of way that satisfies the purpose and need of the project as a possible project location when conducting environmental studies.

ˆ To the extent practical, TxDOT shall plan and design facilities so that a landowner's property is not severed into two or more separate tracts and the original shape of the property is preserved.

"These principles will help guide TxDOT as we work to improve our state's traffic congestion and air quality problems," said Delisi. "The Texas Legislature shares our commitment to improving highway safety and creating economic opportunity, and they expect us to meet these goals in keeping with our state's tradition of protecting the rights of property owners."

Delisi said that the Trans-Texas Corridor implementation plan "Crossroads of the Americas," should be updated to reflect changes in the state's transportation challenges since it was first released in June of 2002.

"As we work to develop important projects like a parallel corridor to I-35 and the long-awaited I-69, we will work toward meeting our goals with these important principles in mind," she said.

When I said in the headline that the Corridor is dead, what I mean is that the grandiose plan conceived by Ric Williamson ˜ a network of privatized toll roads criss-crossing Texas with a 1,200-foot right of way, and funded by upfront payments ˜ is not going to reach fruition. I mean that Tx-DOT and Governor Perry have capitulated to public and legislative opposition. I mean that Interstate 69 and TTC-35 will not be built as originally planned. But they will be built and they will be toll roads. In short, Tx-DOT and Delisi appear to be saying that Tx-DOT will follow a traditional road-building policy rather than Williamson's vision, which envisioned long-term private ownership and control of roadways.

Why did this happen?

I think the answer is obvious. A year ago, Governor Perry was resisting legislative efforts to rein in Tx-DOT. Now he is capitulating about the same things he was fighting a year ago. What is the difference between then and now? He decided that he wanted to seek reelection. I know that he was advised that he had to give up the privatization model if he wanted to run again. Neither the public nor the Legislature has any confidence in it.

There is another reason. The political clout in transportation issues lies with the business communities in Houston and Dallas, not with Tx-DOT or the governor. Local leaders in the two regions have insisted that their regional tolling authorities be allowed to build the roads (rather than private interests) and that the revenue generated by new toll roads in their areas must stay in their areas. Houston and the Metroplex have seen the gasoline tax revenue they generate be distributed all over the state, and they weren't going to let it happen to their toll revenue.

The lastˆor let us hope it was the lastˆgreat struggle over "primacy" (the right of local toll authorities to undertake projects without the approval but with the cooperation of TxDOT) occurred over Highways 121 and 161 in Dallas. At first, TxDOT prohibited the North Texas Tollway Authority from bidding to construct and operate 121 and accepted a private-sector bid from Cintra instead. The effect was that the upfront payment would go to TxDOT and the long-term revenue would go to Cintra. The Dallas-Fort Worth region was not assured of getting any of it. That was unacceptable to the local interests, and eventually TxDOT melted under the political heat: It allowed NTTA to build the road. Another battle ensued over 161 with the same result. TxDOT had become wedded to a political posture that was unsustainable: It was adversarial to the local toll authorities when it should have been partners.

A delegation from Dallas-Fort Worth, including the mayors of both cities, showed up in force at the commission hearing to air their concerns about TxDOT. Their chief complaint was about the process for market valuation of toll roads. The governor's office insisted that it had to be part of the toll road legislation passed at the end of the 2007 session. It was one last attempt to tip the scales in favor of the private sector against the local toll authorities. TxDOT wanted to assure that the local toll agencies would have to match the market value of the road. The testimony established that the procedure for arriving at that value was highly contentious, requiring 63 meetings and causing a considerable loss of money in construction delays. Even Ted Houghton, the last of the true believers on the commission (excluding, perhaps, Delisi), conceded that the process was broken. It is unlikely to survive.

Can Delisi rehabilitate TxDOT as a kindler, gentler agency? That will take some doing. The agency has done terrible damage to its own reputation and credibility. It has been arrogant, secretive, and incompetent. It has played fast and loose with numbers, such as the estimated cost of needed transportation projects and the increase in the gasoline tax necessary to pay for it (not that an increase is likely). It can't account for a billion dollars of its money. It has resisted legislative oversight. TxDOT's press release was a start, but don't read too much into it. Most of the "changes" the agency promised were already current law.

This did not prevent Wayne Christian of the House conservative coalition from attempting to claim credit for the policies TxDOT affirmed in its press release. The group issued a release of its own saying in which Christian, [announced] "an agreement on vital issues regarding the Trans-Texas Corridor." And what was that "agreement?" [T]he Transportation Commission has formally agreed to follow [various] statutory requirements." In other words, they agreed to follow the law that they had already taken an oath to uphold.

More trenchantly, State Representative Lois Kolkhorst of Brenham, an outspoken critic of TxDOT and the Corridor, said of the press release, "[It] does not offer any real reforms or serious changes from the current atmosphere. It was merely a repackaging of familiar statements that are already in state law. I'm glad to see that the new TxDOT leadership is reaching out, but it's time to roll up our sleeves and talk about real reforms to address the public outrage over the Trans-Texas Corridor." Again, I think that what will force the reforms Kolkhorst seeks is a lack of money. The only way I-69 will be built is if it follows the existing right-of-way of U.S. 59 and, probably, the Grand Parkway, rather than cutting a swath through rural Texas. And the same is true of TTC-35, which may end up as toll lanes added to I-35.

Kolkhorst's concerns notwithstanding, I think that the die has been cast, and the local toll authorities have won. The Corridor (which today refers to TTC-35, the relief route for Interstate 35, and I-69) is dead not for lack of will but for lack of revenue. The beast has been starved. With the money staying in the Metroplex and Houston, where the congestion is, TxDOT will not have the funds to pave rural Texas with toll roads, unless the traffic justifies it, and that is not likely to occur for a lot longer than Kolkhorst is going to be around the Legislatureˆor I am, for that matter.

I have to give Delisi good marks for her first meeting. Not only did she say the right things, but she also seconded a motion to approve projects in Austin, the home of state senator Kirk Watson, who could have killed her appointment by invoking senatorial courtesy. Watson was criticized for allowing the appointment to go through, but his opinion was that Delisi was smart, and that if he busted her, the next person might not be, and he'd rather have a smart Perry loyalist as chairman than a puppet. I didn't think Watson was right at the time, but after one meeting, at least, I think he was right after all.

TxDOT credibility in political pothole

By The Editorial Board

June 5, 2008

There's no reason to think that radical changes to the governance of the Texas Department of Transportation, which spends $8 billion a year, alone would get this or that highway built or improved sooner than now, at least in the short run.

But it's also clear that the department's credibility, both with the public and the Legislature, is badly damaged. Unless it is restored, basic decisions about what to build and, ever more critically, how to pay for it will get put off - at a time when too many highways, especially in metropolitan areas, are overburdened.

The clash here isn't between lawmakers and faceless highway bureaucrats, though both are players, but between Gov. Rick Perry and a Legislature that has rebelled against his policy of relying on tolls and privatization to build and maintain highways.

Over the last few years, the department has been embroiled in highly controversial projects - selling a new, future toll road to a private contractor with a foreign owner; attempting to rebuild existing highways as toll roads; and pushing the governor's proposed Trans-Texas Corridor through rural areas over the fierce objections of many landowners.

Then, last fall, the department said it had no new money for road construction because it had diverted $1.1 billion to road maintenance - an announcement that particularly angered Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, who had just spent months painfully reassembling a local highway construction plan that had been stalled by controversy over tolls.

Another blow to the department's credibility came in February, when it announced that, because of an accounting error, it was short yet another $1.1 billion for new road construction.

Watson says the department is "broken," in part because it has "virtually completely ignored local control issues." Many lawmakers share his views.

The department is governed by the Texas Transportation Commission, a five-member panel appointed by the governor. Until December, when he died, Ric Williamson, a close friend of Perry's, was chairman. Williamson was so disliked by so many that Texas Monthly last year called him "the most hated person in Texas."

This week the staff of the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission, an arm of the Legislature, recommended putting the department into a kind of "legislative conservatorship" to regain control.

The Sunset staff also recommended abolishing the transportation commission, replacing it with a single commissioner appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Texas Senate.

But it's another Sunset proposal that especially reflects legislative impatience with the governor: The single transportation commissioner would get only a two-year term, and if the governor failed to nominate a successor, the lieutenant governor - who presides over the Texas Senate - would make the appointment. Last year, with the Legislature in town, Perry kept Williamson in office past the end of his term by declining to nominate a successor.

Perry has appointed a chairwoman, Deirdre Delisi, who used to be the governor's chief of staff. She has said she will try to calm all the controversy.

Delisi's success, however, will depend heavily on the willingness and ability of the governor and legislators to reach a more fundamental agreement about how to go about building highways - and how to pay for them.