Ritter weighs in on the water bonds
Chairman Ritter posted a comment about the water bond thread of discussion. Rather than having it buried in the comments section, I am going to post it separately, below.
Paul,
I can certainly understand your frustrations with the legislature not finding a dedicated source of revenue to fully implement our State Water Plan. As you know, I carried legislation this year that would have provided a mechanism for funding the plan. I also carried the joint resolution that resulted in Proposition 2. I cannot stress enough that a dedicated source of funding is only one component in the overall implementation of the plan which cannot be accomplished without bonding authority. The passage of Proposition 2 is a crucial step towards accomplishing this goal for the State of Texas.
Proposition 2 furthers our progress in meeting the future water needs of Texans. The importance of Proposition 2 is that it allows a self-supporting debt which is borrowed from the state through the Texas Water Development Board. These bonds would be issued only to provide funding requested by local communities, and the debt is then repaid by the borrowing entities.
Currently, many local entities are not able to access the financing necessary to complete projects without partnering with the state. The bonding authority enables a water provider to borrow funds backed by the good faith and credit of the state, lowering the cost of the loan, and thereby lowering the bottom line cost to the consumer. In fact, authorizing this type of bonding authority is the most fiscally conservative and responsible way to do business.
The failure of Proposition 2 means the imminent end of that partnership for water projects around the state, with or without a dedicated source of funding. I strongly support the passage of Proposition 2, and I hope that you will encourage your readers to do the same.
Representative Allan B. Ritter
Committee on Natural Resources, Chairman
Texas House of Representatives
* * * *
I appreciate Chairman Ritter’s contribution to the discussion. My encouragement is surely not needed, as I am certain that the water bonds will pass (voters know when they are getting something for nothing), and I will probably end up voting for them. One can only reflect how much better off the state would be if, at the start of the Perry governorship, it had invested in water and transportation infrastructure through normal revenue-raising means–highway bonds secured by an increase in the gasoline tax, and water bonds secured by a tap fee. The state has made little to no progress in these areas in that time. No doubt the public would scream bloody murder if there was a serious proposal to increase the gasoline tax, but it never occurs to them that their opposition to raising the gasoline tax dooms them to drive on toll roads, which are not only costlier, but in some cases are not meeting their traffic projections.
Tagged: Allan Ritt, proposition 2, water plan
Aren Cambre says:
One point: your proposed tap “fee” is really a tax. It provides no economic service to the payer; rather, it provides a collective benefit to society. Classical purpose of a tax, to me.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
July 31st, 2011 at 9:28 am
How much will the tap fee be? Do consumers who already have city or community water service pay a new fee or tax? Are they going to charge me for using my own well? There is much more I would like to know than this before I would consider voting for this amendment.
Reply »
Mr. Smith says:
When I go to the grocery store, I have to give them money in order to walk out of the store with the groceries. Sure, I can pay with a credit card, but if I do that too much, I’ll be spending most of my money paying my credit card, and not buying groceries. When we pay for infrastucture with bonds, we are paying for things with our credit cards. It doesn’t matter if its local tap fees, impact fees, or a bottle return fee that will pay for that credit (bonds), money has to be paid. When we have corporations like Cintra build our roads, we add to our debt by having to guarantee them a profit. When we throw infrastructure costs to our localities, knowing the users will pay for the bonds through tap fees or impact fees, we are saying that the users should be impacted, and not all of us (after all, they’re generating the need for the lake in the first place). So, nothing is for free. All these issues are really who will pay for it, who will take the risk, and how much extra will we end up spending to create the illusion that we didn’t raise taxes. This is governmental cowardice, boosted by the voter’s magical thinking.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
July 31st, 2011 at 2:44 pm
I would like to hit the “like” button on this post.
The essence of toll roads in Texas is BORROWING, whether it is public borrowing or public-private partnerships (thugopolies). And these roads end up being far, far more expensive than “pay as you go.”
“All these issues are really who will pay for it, who will take the risk, and how much extra will we end up spending to create the illusion that we didn’t raise taxes. This is governmental cowardice, boosted by the voter’s magical thinking.”
Reply »
Frank says:
Paul,
What’s this about toll roads not meeting projections? I didn’t realize that those projects not accomplishing their intended purp
Reply »
Frank says:
Paul,
What’s this about toll roads not meeting projections? I didn’t realize that those projects were not accomplishing their intended purpOSS.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
July 31st, 2011 at 9:21 am
They, some toll roads, especially in Central Texas are not paying their own way therefore the Texas Department of Transportation subsidies almost 70% more than predicted. This is money from from our gas taxes that could otherwise go to other road projects.
Reply »