Groups: Bad Prop. 6 spending could harm Galveston Bay
Saturday, November 16, 2013 1:00 am
Groups: Bad Prop. 6 spending could harm Galveston Bay By MICHAEL A. SMITH
galvestondailynews.com
Done poorly, efforts to slake a surging thirst for surface water among
farms, industries and cities along the Trinity River could harm Galveston Bay,
two environmental groups warn.
Environment Texas and the Galveston Bay Foundation are calling for the
Texas Water Development Board to make conservation efforts top priorities for
funding from a $2 billion pool voters approved last week through Proposition
6.
Representatives of the groups, both of which supported passage of
Proposition 6, spoke during a news conference Tuesday at Pier 21 in Galveston
where they issued a report on threatened Texas rivers.
Demand for water is expected to rise as Texas adds 21 million residents by
2060, according to the report.
The Texas Water Development Board anticipates that 51 percent of new water
supplies will have to come from rivers and streams as the state’s aquifers are
becoming increasingly depleted.
The groups said the state’s 2012 water plan relies too much on building
reservoirs and diverting river water for agricultural, industrial and municipal
uses, which damages river and bay ecosystems.
The report focused on the Rio Grande, Guadalupe, San Saba, Sulphur and
Trinity rivers.
The groups urged the board to direct regional water planning groups to
include in their 2014 priority lists at least 30 percent of funding for water
conservation.
“Last week, Texans overwhelmingly supported Proposition 6, a historic
investment in cutting water waste and conserving water,” said Dani
Neuharth-Keusch, field associate with Environment Texas Research and Policy
Center.
“Now it’s up to the water board to invest the money in a way that restores
our rivers and bays while sustainably meeting communities’ water needs.”
The water development board didn’t respond to a request for comment.
At least 500 billion gallons of water are wasted in Texas each year, enough
to meet the water needs of 9 million Texans, the report states.
Water is lost through evaporation and over-watering fields, through old,
inefficient technology at industrial production sites and through leaking
municipal water systems, according to the report.
Anywhere from 10 percent to 40 percent of the water pumped into municipal
systems is lost through leaks, said Bob Stokes, president of Galveston Bay
Foundation.
A law accompanying Proposition 6 mandates that at least 20 percent of the
funding be used to support water conservation projects and another 10 percent be
used for rural or agricultural conservation projects, Neuharth-Keusch
said.
“As a result, billions will be available to farmers to upgrade irrigation
equipment, to cities to fix leaking municipal water mains, and to businesses to
install drought-resistant landscaping or water-efficient appliances,” she
said.
One estimate found that as much as 25 percent of the water pumped into the
city of Houston’s system was lost to leaks, Stokes said. Houston and Dallas are
among the largest municipal users of the Trinity River, which, along with the
San Jacinto River, feeds fresh water into Galveston Bay.
The influx of freshwater where the Trinity meets Galveston Bay supports
economically important oyster, shrimp and blue crab fisheries, Stokes said.
Oysters are particularly vulnerable to higher salinity levels that would come
from the loss of freshwater inflows, he said.
“The loss of oysters in Galveston Bay would provide not only a crushing
ecosystem blow to the Bay, but also a crushing economic blow to the Bay area,”
Stokes said.
Tom Tollett, who owns Tommy’s Restaurant & Oyster Bar, 2555 Bay Area
Blvd., said he was concerned about a reduction of freshwater into Galveston Bay
harming oyster beds.
“We have to find a way to meet the needs of one industry without destroying
another,” he said.
Prop 6: Slush Fund or Solution to Texas’ Water Woes?
Everything you've ever wanted to know about Prop 6—and then some.
by Forrest Wilder Published on Thursday, October 31, 2013, at 8:00 CST
At this point, you’ve probably heard about Texas’ water woes. We’re in a
drought, our population is booming, some towns have lost their water supply, and
things are likely to get worse. You might have also seen TV spots recently
urging you to vote yes on Proposition 6 on Nov. 5. Or maybe you heard Gov. Rick
Perry talking it up on the local news, posing in front of a dwindling lake. Or
maybe you read speaker of the House Joe Straus’ compelling op-ed in the San
Antonio Express-News. Prop 6 is being pitched as a long-term solution to the
growing water supply problems of the state, a near-panacea to avoid the
economic, social and environmental stress that prolonged drought is bringing to
the state. Or as the pro-Prop 6 ads put it, “Don’t let the tap run dry.”
But what is Prop 6 and who’s behind it and who stands to profit from it?
Unless you followed the legislative sessions closely, you probably had no idea
what Prop 6 is, and you don’t want to just take “their” word for it. In short,
you’ve probably got some questions. Below is a FAQ, based on interviews and
research conducted by the Observer that we hope will help you make an informed
choice at the polls on Nov. 5 (or during early voting, if that’s how you
roll).
***
What is Prop 6?
It’s one of nine proposed constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot
this year. Essentially, Proposition 6 would create a water bank, seeded with $2
billion from the state’s Rainy Day Fund, to help finance the 562 water projects
anticipated in the State Water Plan. The main fund is called the State Water
Implementation Fund (SWIFT).
Those projects, ranging from building new reservoirs to fixing leaky pipes,
are estimated to cost $53 billion over the next 50 years. State leaders believe
the $2 billion can be leveraged to cover the state’s share, or $27
billion.
The fund would provide low-cost financing options for communities and
utilities around Texas by buying down interest rates, offering deferred payments
on interest and principal, and extending the payback period for loans.
Who will oversee all that money?
The new (and improved?) Texas Water Development Board.
The Legislature, as part of the legislation authorizing Prop 6,
restructured the agency from an all-volunteer board to a three-member panel
appointed by Gov. Rick Perry—a move that has heightened concerns that the SWIFT
will end up being another slush fund benefitting Perry’s cronies.The top
administrators and all board members were purged. The former head of the agency,
Melanie Callahan, said the politicization of the water board could lead to
conflicts of interest.
“I think any time you have political appointees who are full time and
making $150,000 a year, I don’t see how you at least have that perception,”
Callahan told the Observer.
Who did Rick Perry appoint to oversee the Texas Water Development
Board?
This is going to come as a shock… but he appointed three loyalists with
close partisan or business ties to the governor.
Bech Bruun: Bruun has swung through the revolving door between the GOP and
Texas government several times. He was on Rick Perry’s staff from 2001 to 2007,
advising the governor on, get this, gubernatorial appointments. Then, he went to
work as the executive director of Texas Victory 2008, the GOP’s get-out-the-vote
operation. Then, he worked as chief of staff to state Rep. Todd Hunter (R-Corpus
Christi) before heading off to the Brazos River Authority. The Brazos River
Authority has been embroiled in controversy for years as it tries to take
control of most of the remaining unallocated water rights in the Brazos
basin.
Carlos Rubinstein: An old hand at water policy in Texas, Rubinstein
previously served as the Rio Grande Watermaster before being tapped for the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Though he was not quite as divisive
as his counterparts, Rubinstein has generally been in line with the governor’s
aggressive attacks on EPA.
Mary Ann Williamson: The wife of the late Ric Williamson, who was a close
friend of Perry’s and oversaw the scuttled Trans-Texas Corridor. Mary Ann
Williamson previously served as the chair of the Texas Lottery Commission and
she owns MKS Natural Gas, a company Perry invested in through his blind trust.
How do I get my hands on some of that sweet SWIFT money?
The only projects that can be considered for financing are those listed in
the State Water Plan, which is redrafted every five years. The most recent plan,
released in 2012, contains 562 projects. The State Water Plan is the product of
16 regional water planning groups, agglomerations of stakeholders—including
cities, power plant operators, river authorities, agriculture and
environmentalists—who study the region’s needs, current and future water supply,
and come up with a list of recommended projects (Under the new law, the planning
groups must come up with a list of prioritized water projects.)
The SWIFT dollars won’t be available until March 2015, three years into the
next round of the regional planning process that leads to the State Water Plan.
Is there anything in there for conservation or rural communities?
Yes, the Legislature directed the water board to devote at least 20 percent
of the funding to water conservation, and 10 percent to rural communities and
agriculture. Those provisions went a long way toward buying support from big
environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and ag interests like the Texas
Farm Bureau, both which are stumping for Prop 6.
However, some environmentalists point out that the language in the final
bill (the water board “shall undertake to apply”) is ambiguous and could make
conservation optional.
“Our view obviously is that most likely it’s going to be window dressing
for a slush fund,” said Bill Bunch of Austin’s Save Our Springs Alliance, whose
board voted unanimously to oppose Prop 6. “There is some small chance that Rick
Perry’s appointees will do something other than throw money at their cronies. We
just see that as very unlikely.”
But Ken Kramer, the well-respected former chairman of the Lone Star Chapter
of the Sierra Club, argues the concern is overblown. “Frankly that’s just a
tempest in a teapot as far as I’m concerned,” he said. The provision had to be
written that way because it’s possible, though not likely, that not enough
conservation-related applications could be filed to reach the 20 percent
threshold. The conservation target, he argues, “provides an opportunity we
haven’t had before—to get out there and really hustle for conservation projects
that can be brought online pretty quickly.” Kramer said conservation-minded
folks should get involved with the regional water planning process to make sure
conservation projects get put on the priority list.
Michele Gangnes, an activist in Lee County with the group Independent
Texans, disagrees.
“I trust [Kramer']s instincts, but in this case I think his judgment is
clouded by hoping that this is a way to get conservation funded.” Ganges said
she’s tried to make conservation projects a priority at her regional planning
group, but they “roll their eyes.”
Who’s supporting Prop 6?
In general, Prop 6 has broad backing from what you might term The Bigs: big
environmental groups, big ag, big business and big-time politicians, including
Gov. Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, speaker of the House Joe Straus and the
vast majority of the Texas Legislature. The bill putting Prop 6 on the ballot
passed the Texas House 141-4, with token opposition from a handful of tea party
members.
Meanwhile, a coalition of industrial interests, organized as Water Texas
PAC and run by Speaker Joe Straus, has poured $2.1 million into a campaign to
push voters to approve Prop 6. The top donors include a mix of water-intensive
industries and interests that stand to profit from the billions in spending on
water infrastructure unleashed by Prop 6. Among the top funders of Water Texas
PAC:
•The Associated General Contractors of Texas ($375,000), a trade
association whose members are likely to profit from the projects funded by
SWIFT;
•Dow Chemical ($250,000): Dow enjoys senior water rights on the Brazos
River associated with its gargantuan chemical facilities at Freeport on the
coast. Water rights for some other users in the Brazos have been suspended
multiple times during the current drought when Dow has made a “priority call,”
basically laying claim to its share when there’s not enough to go around.
•Energy Future Holdings Co./Luminant ($129,000): The nearly bankrupt EFH is
Texas’ largest electric utility company. Its fleet of coal, natural gas and
nuclear power plants rely on a stable water supply to ensure that its steam
turbines can generate electricity.
•Koch Industries ($20,000): Although Koch is better known for David and
Charles Koch’s vast contributions to right-wing causes and corporate front
groups, the company’s manufacturing and refining facilities depend on an
abundant and cheap supply of water.
Water Texas roped in former Rangers pitcher, and Republican booster, Nolan
Ryan to stump for Prop 6.
The environmental community is split, with the big green groups—Sierra
Club, Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Environment
Texas—supporting Prop 6.
Who’s opposing Prop 6?
The opposition has never been well organized and is only now, just days
before the election, receiving much attention from the press. The most vocal
skeptics and opponents of Prop 6 largely hail from two camps that don’t normally
get along—libertarians and tea party activists, and grassroots
environmentalists.
JoAnn Fleming, a well-known tea party activist from Tyler who oversees the
We the People PAC, has put out a voter guide offering 12 reasons to oppose Prop
6. The guide blasts SWIFT as a “quasi-investment bank” that will “set up a shell
game to favor special interests” while burdening local government with
debt.
Michele Gangnes, a Lee County attorney and member of the informal “Nix Prop
6″ group, says she thinks SWIFT will pay for projects that will move water from
rural areas to the big cities.
“We’re pushing the power up to the state and taking away local control,”
she said.
Some environmentalists insist that cities should implement more aggressive
conservation programs before spending billions on resource-intensive water
supply projects.
“What the Legislature did was offer a panic-button approach for pork-barrel
projects that are almost always aimed at increasing the rate of depletion of
limited water supplies in the form of pipelines and reservoir projects,” said
Bunch, the long-time director of Save our Springs.
“Most of the effective conservation strategies don’t require debt or
big-capital financing. The ones that do are probably not the ones that are the
most cost-effective.”
Has anything like this been proposed before?
Not exactly. But Texas voters have been asked at least a dozen times to
amend the state constitution to authorize water-related spending. The first such
instance was in 1957, at the tail end of the historic drought of record. Voters
overwhelmingly approved (74 percent in favor) $200 million (about $1.7 billion
in today’s dollars) in water development funding to make loans to
drought-stricken communities. Along with the creation of the Texas Water
Development Board, it marked the advent of an era of reservoir-building and
state involvement in securing water supplies.
Between the late 1960s and early 1980s, voters took a more jaundiced view
of state spending on water infrastructure. The most grandiose water plan ever
hatched came to a vote in 1969. The Legislature, perhaps high on the Summer of
Love, asked voters to approve $3.5 billion in bonds (an incredible $22.3 billion
in today’s dollars) to finance the construction of the “Trans-Texas canal”
(sound familiar?), an open-air canal from the Mississippi River through
Louisiana to East Texas, where huge reservoirs would store the water, and
collect more, before conveying it to arid agricultural areas of West and South
Texas.
The Observer, then a for-profit venture that endorsed candidates (the
Observer is now a nonprofit), called it “not really a plan at all, but a highly
speculative, sometimes dishonest, and always optimistic scheme for spending a
monumental hunk of Texas’ money, mainly to replenish the water supplies of West
and South Texas irrigators and oil and sulphur producers.” Sound familiar?
The Observer editorial also notes that “most of the state’s daily
newspapers have endorsed the water bond issue, editorializing with great
assurance that, although the plan is expensive, there is no alternative if Texas
is to have the water it desperately needs. Wrong.”
And the voters seem to have agreed. The proposition was narrowly defeated,
by fewer than 6,000 votes.
Chastened, the Legislature didn’t try another big bond authorization for
water infrastructure until 1976, when voters soundly rejected a $400 million
water bond authorization. Voters also shot down, 43-57, another proposal,
floated by Rep. Tom Craddick (R-Midland), in 1981 to dedicate a portion of
excess tax revenue to water projects.
Kramer, of the Sierra Club, said he thinks Texans rejected the proposals
because “there was no effort to pay attention to conservation.”
“It was just a build, build, build type concept,” he said.
By 1985, legislators tried again, this time taking a more comprehensive
approach that included conservation, funding for agricultural projects and flood
control. The two measures overwhelmingly passed and since then every
water-funding proposition has succeeded, including the most recent in 2011—an
additional $6 billion in bond authority for the Texas Water Development
Board—with a narrow 51.5 percent of voters approving.
Tags: Drought, Prop 6, reservoirs, Rick Perry, State Water Plan, SWIFT,
Texas Water Development Board
Forrest Wilder, a native of Wimberley, Texas, is associate editor of the
Observer. Forrest specializes in environmental reporting and runs the “Forrest
for the Trees” blog. Forrest has appeared on Democracy Now!, The Rachel Maddow
Show and numerous NPR stations. His work has been mentioned by The New York
Times, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, Time magazine and many other state
and national publications. Other than filing voluminous open records requests,
Forrest enjoys fishing, kayaking, gardening and beer-league softball. He holds a
bachelor's degree in anthropology from the University of Texas at Austin.
Proposition 6 is Rick Perry
crony slush fund
Alyssa Burgin, Executive Director, Texas
Drought Project wrote the following
opinion about Proposition 6. And, if anyone knows the ins and outs of drought,
it’s Alyssa.
The Texas
Drought Project opposes Proposition 6,
which takes $2 billion from the Rainy Day fund to ‘salt’ loans managed by the
Texas Water Development Board. Twenty percent is presumably allotted for
conservation, and conservation is a good thing, but–in the two-and-a-half-inch
thick Texas Water plan, only one paragraph is devoted to conservation, and the
language, which states that the Water Board “shall undertake to apply” funds to
conservation rather than “shall apply”–is not a typo.
Consider who’s funding the PR campaign–Dow
Chemical, the Koch brothers, O&G–profiteers who would drain Texas dry for a
tidy fortune. The new TWDB board reflects their influence–all Perry cronies,
including the co-owner of Perry’s O&G company. These high-salaried newcomers
will decide where the money is spent.
Remember–all the money in the world won’t fill
reservoirs that sit at 0.0% (Lake Meredith), 4.2% (Medina), 5.6% (Palo Duro) or
Travis (32%). Areas in which reservoirs suffer high evaporation rates will lose
even more water as temperatures rise with climate change. Logically, the only
places where it would be of benefit to build reservoirs would be in areas where
they’re already full. And what would be the purpose, other than to build them
for the specific intention of piping water to other areas–thirsty big cities
where elected officials have been unable to institute real conservation or
implement serious drought restrictions. Why should we as taxpayers bear the cost
of more water for “addicts” whose addiction to cheap water is out of control?
Should the TWDB pick winners and losers? Don’t small towns and rural areas, bays
and rural ecosystems ‘deserve’ to keep their own water, without profiteers
piping it to sprawling population centers–for big dollars–or using it for their
own enterprises?
We strongly urge a “no” vote on Proposition
6.
Alyssa Burgin
Additional information:
From the Texas Drought Project Voter
Guide:
- First, please see the “pro” and “con” arguments
offered by Speaker of the House Joe Straus and Independent Texans’ director
Linda Curtis, as presented in the San Antonio Express-News:
- Then peruse a list of contributors to the Proposition 6
public relations campaign, compiled by Lobby Watch.
- View the arguments for Proposition 6 by Environment
Texas
- And the Lone Star Sierra Club
- And see an article in the Dallas Morning News which poses
the question, why do we need more funding for water projects, when 6 billion has
already been approved, and not spent?
- Take a look at the statement issued by Save our Springs,
our respected allies in Austin, who have done so much to fight back against the
efforts of developers to destroy Austin’s natural beauty. They oppose
Proposition 6, for reasons which have everything to do with preserving our
ecosystem.
- And last but not least, view Greg Harman’s reporting on
Proposition 6, which speaks to the allies of the plan and the new triumvirate
which has been appointed to head the Texas Water Development
Board And another Harman report.
Information about Perry’s crony appointments to
the TWDB and about the water used for fracking:
Earthworks does not have a position on Prop 6
but I will be voting against it.
re-Prop-6, fresh water, and Galveston Bay,
THE very reason why I voted NO for Prop 6. just another slush fund for the
state. Galveston Bay can take no more abuse. IF it’s not the constant dredging
and the islands of toxic dredge materials there from popping up every where not
bad enough for the Galveston Bay waters, due to industry, now we have the Texas
Water Development Board and Prop 6 slush fund that will be bought off to the
highest bidder via lobbying from the farming industry, the rice farmers, to
livestock industry, to city’s that just about loose more water than they contain
and use, and that’s just a few off the top of my head. the Texas water board is
no different than anybody else, there pockets can be picked clean like any other
group, by politicians, industry, and lobbyist there from. it’s bad enough that
Texas is a nuclear dumping ground for 38 states thanks to Rick Perry and his
friends, it’s bad enough the air we breath is barely breathable thanks to Rick
Perry and his corporate buddies, but now we are going to risk our beloved
Galveston Bay, again, by risking the natural influx of fresh water into
Galveston bay, to the highest bidder. I have spoken with folks in the seafood
industry, and the restrictions they claim already on the influx of fresh water
into Galveston Bay is already hurting shrimp, oysters, and other sea life in
Galveston bay. she can’t take any more abuse from man, and that’s all she will
get from Austin with this Prop 6, that everyone was fooled into voting for.
nothing nor nobody (except God), should be a top priority over any change,
that would be detrimental in water influx into Galveston Bay, or any other bay
in Texas, nobody. ...
Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Galveston Bay
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Dickinson Bayou: A TMDL Project and Use Assessment for Bacteria Troubled
Waters
Dickinson Bayou: A TMDL Project and Use Assessment for Bacteria
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Galveston County BACLIFF TEXAS FLOUNDER FISH KILL MASSIVE AUGUST 11, 2012
(see video of the dead flounder floating)
VIDEO FLOUNDER KILL
Galveston County BACLIFF TEXAS FLOUNDER FISH KILL MASSIVE AUGUST 11, 2012
see video of massive flounder kill with Seabreeze article September 6, 2012
; Thousands of Flounder Killed on San Leon Bacliff Shoreline (AGAIN)
additional sources for flounder kill video;
Department of the Army December 9, 1963
Friday, May 3, 2013
TEXAS, EPA, TCEQ, RICK PERRY, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the
Committee on Science, Space and Technology, and the dumbing down of sound
science for profit $ i.e. The High Quality Stupid Act
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Radioactive Senate waste bill 791 Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo and Governor
Rick Perry, Totalitarian rule or Authoritarian regime ?
Monday, March 25, 2013
TCEQ Proposes Removal of Two Pollutants from the Texas City APWL
Area--Benzene and Hydrogen Sulfide
Sunday, December 9, 2012
*** RICE DIKE PROPOSAL COULD DESTROY GALVESTON BAY BAYSHORE COMMUNITIES
October 10, 2012
IKE DIKE PROPOSED BY RICE UNIVERSITY hangs our Bayshore communities out to
dry, IN 25 FEET OF WATER, to make way for WATERFRONT RECREATION $$$
Monday, April 15, 2013
Hurricane Ike: 5 Years Later Conference Rice Dike Proposal September 24-25,
2013
Sunday, June 9, 2013
RICE DIKE AND IKE DIKE ARE RIVALS NO MORE, AND HAS BACKED OFF THE PROPOSAL
OF A 20-MILE 25 FOOT LEVEE ALONG SH 146
77518 TOXIC DREDGE SLUDGE ISLAND
I guess they got one permit stipulating one height for the toxic dredge
dump behind our house, and since the people in shore acres, and yacht club,
didn’t want another toxic dump, they got them to just make that island behind
our house bigger with another permit? I guess the next big hurricane all that
mess will be in our backyard. I went and bought 50 LBS. of shrimp yesterday at
Hillmans for the winter, they are having to bring shrimp in from Polacias,
Texas, because they are not getting any shrimp in Galveston bay. daaa, can you
see my surprised look on my face. ...something is wrong with Galveston Bay, and
it will only get worse with the continued dredging of Galveston Bay. now we are
going to get super tankers up to the Houston Ship channel. why can’t they just
stay in Galveston $ who will pay for the increased erosion of the bulkheads and
shoreline, from these bigger ships, causing bigger wave activity? I am sure the
Port of Houston, and the Army corp. of engineers already have that one all
worked out, with a ‘no responsibility clause’, and or, another permit that the
Army Corp. of engineers never following up on, like the one they did not follow
up on for the PH Robinson H L & P power plant construction permitting
process. I look for the Army Corp. of engineers just to rubber stamp another
pollution project to bolster it’s earnings at the Port of Houston. I am afraid
Galveston Bay has lost it’s battle to survive. ...
see map of island ;
ARMY CORP APPROVED TOXIC DUMPS IN GALVESTON BAY ‘GLIT ISLANDS’
GLIT ISLAND
GLIT ISLAND DOCK
GLIT ISLAND TRACTOR SPREADING A LOAD OF ?
JUST NORTH OF GLIT ISLAND, YOU HAVE MANY MORE GLIT TYPE ISLANDS BEING
MANUFACTURED
1ST GLIT TYPE ISLAND PAST THE ORIGINAL GLIT ISLAND, WE HAVE GLIT ISLAND 2
GLIT ISLAND 2
see tractors and pattern works here ???
zoom in and zoom out
JUST PAST THAT, GLIT ISLAND 3
GLIT ISLAND 3
(you can see the dredge way to the right of the photo. zoom in, and look at
the waters of the bay from the dragline...)
ZOOM IN
GLIT ISLAND 4, JUST NORTH OF GLIT ISLAND 3,
GLIT ISLAND 4 SEEMS TO BE CONNECTED TO MANY GLIT TYPE ISLANDS NOW BEING
FORMED AND FILLED IN, that eventually, once running northward, start to turn
green, just before the Atkinson Island Wildlife Management area
Friday, December 24, 2010
*** TEXAS NUCLEAR DUMP VOTE SET AMID HOLIDAY RUSH THANKS TO GOVERNOR RICK
PERRY
I think the title should have read, "TEXAS LOSES TO BE NEXT BIG DUMPING
GROUND FOR NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION RADIOACTIVE WASTE", thanks to Governor Rick
Perry.
update on my father-in-law Dana (RED) Ashcraft of Miamisburg Ohio, and my
best fishing buddy, and Poisoned AT THE MONSANTO MOUND, hospice has now been
called in. ...
TSS
part II December 25, 2010
WHY then, was my father-in-laws work records denied him, with the claim
that his records were buried deep in a mountain due to contamination ? now i am
speaking of only his work records, not the radioactive waste itself, that you
claim to be 1000 % safe today. tell me that. do you know how many different
folks handled all that paper work over the years. also, the swimming pool in
Miamisburg Ohio, the old one right down from the Monsanto Mound. the town had to
shut it down and fill the swimming pool in with cement. wonder how many kids
there were exposed over the decades, including my wife ?
MONSANTO MOUND MIAMISBURG OHIO SWIMMING POOL
" We acknowledge that some people near the Mound Plant have breathed, or
will likely breathe, very small amounts of plutonium-238, hydrogen-3 (tritium),
and other radioactive substances that will be or have been released into the air
from the Mound Plant. And some people may be exposed to radioactive materials
released from the Mound Plant into the area waterways (for example, tritium in
the Miamisburg Community Park swimming pool). Nevertheless, there is no evidence
that current environmental levels of these substances cause adverse health
effects. "
Data Evaluation: Current Exposures
snip...
Then, they send all the radioactive waste to Texas. Now, we are going to
multiply this by about 38 states ?
stupid is, as stupid does, and some times you just can't fix stupid
$$$
My old fishing buddy (my father-in-law Red, deceased now), took these
photos after I convinced him to get back with the Mayor and see if he would take
him down there again, and if he did, get me a photo or two of this nuclear crap
coming to Texas, thanks to the good Governor of Texas, rick perry, the steward
of the environment that he is (NOT). well, here are the photo’s ;
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Company advances on plan for West Texas nuclear dump
(railcars loaded with MOUND COLD WAR NUCLEAR AFTER-BIRTH headed to
Texas)
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
TEXAS WINS TO BE NEXT BIG DUMPING GROUND FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS RADIOACTIVE
WASTE
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Rick Perry, Texas, BSE aka mad cow disease, CJD, and 12 years of lies there
from
Monday, November 4, 2013
R-CALF Bullard new BSE rule represents the abrogation of USDA’s
responsibility to protect U.S. consumers and the U.S. cattle herd from the
introduction of foreign animal disease
with great sadness and disgust, I must inform you that our federal
government has failed us again, and chose the industry over sound science, with
regards to TSE prion disease, aka mad cow type disease...tss
Saturday, November 2, 2013
APHIS Finalizes Bovine Import Regulations in Line with International Animal
Health Standards while enhancing the spread of BSE TSE prion mad cow type
disease around the Globe
TSS
