Your latest callout of Democraps and Greens as well as Rethugs for backing Prop 4

This study from the Texas Water Journal says that on-site detailed inspection at sites in Texas shows:

[P]ermitting of surface discharges of produced water must be carefully regulated, and the downstream water quality containing signature produced water constituents must be continuously monitored.

Boom. I don't normally bold pull quotes, but this one needed it.

Continuously monitored? Yeah, sure, the Railroad Commission that can't even keep track of abandoned oil wells will do that, right? Or the Texas Water Development Board, in the middle of development? 

Here's the full abstract of the piece; the sentence bolded above is the last.

West of the 98th meridian, sufficiently treated produced water from oilfields can be legally discharged into surface water for beneficial reuse. However, its long-term impacts on the water quality of downstream waterways are poorly understood. 

In this study, we investigated the water quality evolution for segments of the receiving streams in the Nueces River watershed, namely the Lower Atascosa River and the Petronila Creek. The former site is associated with the permitted discharges from an active oil extraction operation, while the latter site represents a “legacy” site that is known to have been contaminated despite oil and gas operations being terminated in 1987. 

We analyzed datasets, including the historical water quality data from selected upstream and downstream locations relative to the discharge outfalls, to characterize the temporal and spatial trends of the key water quality parameters, including chloride and total dissolved solids. We also conducted correlation analyses between upstream and downstream water quality to describe the spatial relationship of the constituent concentrations and their association with hydrologic dilution effects. 

At both sites, the concentrations of key constituents were consistently and significantly higher than the upstream counterparts. Correlation analyses suggested the influence of additional downstream processes or inputs rather than simple longitudinal transport. Precipitation influences solute concentrations episodically, whereas the dominant drivers appear to reflect longer-term changes in solute inputs rather than hydrologic variability alone. 

While the causality of the worsening downstream water quality must be interpreted cautiously, the analyses showed a strong influence of external inputs impacting the water quality of these receiving streams. As such, permitting of surface discharges of produced water must be carefully regulated, and the downstream water quality containing signature produced water constituents must be continuously monitored.

There you are. 

This shit is why I called out the Texas Green Party's executive committee for backing Prop. 4. Texas Democrats are mainly urban and pretty clueless about agriculture in West Texas, even more, west of the 100th meridian than the 98th. I mean, even the Sierra Club, which ALSO SUPPORTED Prop. 4, admitted that the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas allows fracking wastewater, aka produced water, projects and that Prop 4 tax money would go to that. It's why I am officially no longer a Green at the state level as well as the federal.

For the unknowing, the 98th meridian is a bit west of Fort Worth and Austin, but east of San Antonio.  

Proposition 4 will really, really be a boondoggle

I warned you, even before Charles Perry's plan reached constitutional amendment size.

I warned you after the state admitted it didn't know how much water data centers would use. 

Beyond the boondoggle, I also warned you that environmental orgs and the Texas Green Party weren't telling you it was also an environmental disaster in the waiting, and also warned you that High Plains farmers and ranchers like Suzanne Bellsnyder needed to look in the mirror and admit, per the bible, "physician, and rancher, heal thyself."

Well, without even talking about Prop 4, we know Tex-ass' water needs are a lot more pricey than we knew earlier:

Texas communities will need to spend $174 billion in the next 50 years to avert a severe water crisis, a new state analysis revealed Thursday. That’s more than double the $80 billion projected four years ago, when the Texas Water Development Board last passed a state water plan.

Oops.

Per a Trib link, Prop 4 would be a drop in the bucket on that, but the Perrys of the world may see it as an invite to shovel more cash. 

 

Officially an "independent leftist" in Texas as well as nationally

Since the Texas Green Party said vote yes on the hugely antienvironmental, and economic boondoggle, Proposition 4, which sadly passed with more than 70 percent, they've officially lost me for 2026. 

All they did was cite the Texas Water Fund, created by the state in 2023 legislation for water projects, which in turn only cites the Trib (neolibs) and the Texas Water Development Board (state agency). That even further settles that I am an independent leftist. 

The hugely antienvironmental, part 1?

[Charles Perry] is proposing investing in desalinating salty Gulf water, cleaning up the chemical-laden fracking water used to coax oil from the ground in the Permian Basin, and injecting fresh water underground for later use.

Yeah. Beyond that being directly antienvironmental, it also gives oil drillers a semi-free pass on their fracking wastewater.

The hugely antienvironmental part 2?

Meanwhile, he is involved in mysterious dealmaking with other states for their reserves. During debate over his legislation in early April, Perry alluded to talks with “one or two” neighbors—probably Louisiana and Arkansas—to contract for water.

Wilder noted this is a recycled 1960s plan. In fact, Marc Reisner talked about shit like this in "Cadillac Desert." One thing he noted, which also applied in the Southwest to the Central Arizona Project and other such things is that water is heavy, and it takes a lot of energy to push it uphill. Guess Texas Greens haven't heard of that seminal environmental book. 

Sierra and other Gang Greeners, I get. But, has nobody in the Texas Green Party read Cactus Ed Abbey's famous dictum that "Growth for growth's sake is the theology of the cancer cell"?

At that, at least the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, while  proving itself to still be Gang Green neoliberals in the environmental organization world, in an official support with no real analysis, did admit voters were being offered a pig in a poke:

At least 50% of the annual allocations must go toward the New Water Supply for Texas Fund and the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT). The New Water Supply for Texas Fund supports various projects - some of which are highly controversial - that add to the total volume of water available to Texans, such as reservoir construction, seawater desalination, reuse of oil and gas wastewater (“produced water”), a statewide water conveyance system, acquisition of water from out of state, water and wastewater reuse, and aquifer storage and recovery. 

The focus of the SWIFT is solely on water infrastructure projects identified in the State Water Plan. This is an important accountability measure because it means there must be some level of support for the project locally for it to appear in the State Water Plan. However, there is no requirement for how this part of the funding must be split between the New Water Supply for Texas Fund and SWIFT.

But still said vote yes.

Despite a former leader saying "Wait a minute":

“There are a lot of parallels” between the ’68 plan and today’s water-grid concept, said Ken Kramer, the former head of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and a veteran environmental advocate at the Capitol. The staggering cost. The lack of robust debate. The vague talk of out-of-state water purchases. The impracticality of it all.

Ugh. 

That said? Texas Greens couldn't even offer caveats. 

So, I can't offer support. 

And, I have removed both the Texas GP, and GP national, which I should have done last year, from my links list.

==

Update, Nov. 13: I've gotten a response from one member of the state executive committee, who first briefly explained the process for endorsement or nonendorsement on each of the 17 propositions, then noted that they originally supported Prop 4 but then voted no.

Discovered environmentalism?

No, not exactly.

This person said they voted no because they felt they couldn't trust state regulators and GOP cronies. Still no acknowledgement that the proposition itself, regardless of who oversees its implementation, is antienvironmentalist.

Back to the original.

== 

Sadly, I now say, you broke 2 percent last year and so have party-line ballot access guaranteed for five election cycles again. 

Sidebar: Per this piece, Texas Greens also couldn't talk about how Prop 4 might increase the number of endangered species. 

Of course, the Party of Socialism and Liberation, as well as other Marxist parties, and even the Socialist Party USA, are unlikely to have any write-in candidates next year.

That's OK.

Nearly 25 years ago, the Dallas Morning News had a "where are they now" about local civil rights activists from the 1960s. About half had dropped out of electoral politics. 

Texas High Plains farmers and ranchers are wrong on Proposition 4

I'm talking about people like Suzanne Bellsnyder.

I've previously discussed how it's an economic boondoggle and antienvironmental. Now, we're pivoting directly to Texas' High Plains and Panhandle, places like Sherman and Hansford counties where Ms. Bellsnyder is.

The biggie of the 17 constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot is Proposition 4. Vote NO, NO, and NO. Any librul or alleged leftist organization telling you to vote yes is full of it. I covered this a month ago, and specifically called out Lone Star "Left" for saying vote yes. It's a boondoggle fiscally AND, even worse, for anybody truly to the left? It's horribly antienvironmental. Since then, I noted something worse: The state doesn't even know how much water these "data centers" will use, and it has basically no regulations to that end.

Lone Star "Left," per Cactus Ed Abbey, seems to believe in growth for growth's sake without admitting that's the theology of the cancer cell.

Now note to likes of Suzanne Bellsnyder: Agricultural wells are declining because of over-appropriation and climate change on the high plains, like your Texas Panhandle. Marc Reisner wrote about the former 40 years ago in "Cadillac Desert." I saw that in action 25-plus years ago in eastern New Mexico, as far as the Ogallala Aquifer.

See this piece for details:

Much of this water used for farming is actually wasted; flood or furrow irrigation, the most widely used irrigation technique involving running water through small trenches in crop fields [9], loses about 50% of its water to evaporation and runoff [8]. According to the USGS, 23,000 acres of cropland were irrigated with flood techniques in 2015, using about 43.3 billion gallons of water per day — and wasting half of that [9]. 

Despite its known wastefulness, western farming still relies heavily on flooding irrigation because of its low cost. Government subsidies encourage farmers to purchase more land to produce more crops, requiring larger irrigation equipment — all of which costs money. To try to break even, farmers are forced to turn to fast and reliable irrigation techniques. This cycle is running the aquifer dry.

In fact, the Okie state Extension service says that, because of people like you, Ms. Bellsnyder, parts of the Ogallala could run dry in 30 years. 

In other words, rewarding bad behavior is what Prop 4 is all about, in addition to being anti-environmental etc. 

Per that piece, especially at the federal level but also the state level, there's all sorts of policies we could undertake to preserve the Ogallala. Like this, from that piece above:

Economically, farmers can use lowering groundwater levels as a tax write off on equipment. Replacing tax write offs with tax credits for conserving groundwater could be a compelling incentive to monitor and save more water

There you go.

Meanwhile, yes, people in Ms Bellsnyder's counties, second from left and middle at the top row of the Texas Panhandle, are indeed drawing down water. In some cases, 50-100 feet as of 2001, per the image. Think of how much more it's dropped today.

It's not all farmers. Reportedly, Nebraska is somewhat better, Colorado modestly better, and Tex-ass and Kansas the worst. And, there's the issue of drought likely to continue in the Southwest for the rest of this century due to climate change. (I browsed pieces on Bellsnyder's Substack, and didn't find that phrase, "climate change.") That's the facts. Per this piece, the Ogallala is likely to go pretty much full-on belly-up in 20 years. Part of it is lack of cooperation between states. Part of it is Tex-ass having purely voluntary laws for water conservation.

Until that's fixed, that's another reason to vote NO on Prop. 4. 

Charles Perry, bring the public some water conservation issues with teeth in them, before anything else. 

Sadly, per Ballotpedia, all Democraps in both House and Senate supported it. (Twelve House Rethuglicans were opposed.) Also, sadly, no non-Gang Green environmental org, like Center for Biological Diversity, registered official opposition, whether or not speaking to that end. 

And, a follow-up note to Bellsnyder in general. No, contra your unwarranted assumptions (which you as a newspaper publisher, and a former Texas Lege staffer, should know better than to make) not everybody in rural Tex-ass is Rethuglican. Nor are they all "people of faith." Gack. And barf.

Once more, Texans, Vote NO on Prop 4

The biggie of the 17 constitutional amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot is Proposition 4. Vote NO, NO, and NO. Any librul or alleged leftist organization telling you to vote yes is full of it. I covered this a month ago, and specifically called out Lone Star "Left" for saying vote yes. It's a boondoggle fiscally AND, even worse, for anybody truly to the left? It's horribly antienvironmental. Since then, I noted something worse: The state doesn't even know how much water these "data centers" will use, and it has basically no regulations to that end.

Lone Star "Left," per Cactus Ed Abbey, seems to believe in growth for growth's sake without admitting that's the theology of the cancer cell.

The Texas branch of League of Women Voters is also wrong. 

So is the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, clearly proving itself to still be Gang Green neoliberals in the environmental organization world, in an official support with no real analysis. 

I mean, that piece even admits voters are being offered a pig in a poke:

At least 50% of the annual allocations must go toward the New Water Supply for Texas Fund and the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT). The New Water Supply for Texas Fund supports various projects - some of which are highly controversial - that add to the total volume of water available to Texans, such as reservoir construction, seawater desalination, reuse of oil and gas wastewater (“produced water”), a statewide water conveyance system, acquisition of water from out of state, water and wastewater reuse, and aquifer storage and recovery. 

The focus of the SWIFT is solely on water infrastructure projects identified in the State Water Plan. This is an important accountability measure because it means there must be some level of support for the project locally for it to appear in the State Water Plan. However, there is no requirement for how this part of the funding must be split between the New Water Supply for Texas Fund and SWIFT.

But still says vote yes. 

Gack! Other environmental groups, Gang Green-ish ones, also favor it. National Wildlife Federation and the Nature Conservancy testified for it in the Texas House hearing.

== 

UPDATE, Nov 3: Sadly, it's even worse! I had gone looking for this a week or more ago, and hadn't found it, but? WithOUT the Sierra Club caveats, the Texas Green Party says vote yes. All they do is cite the Texas Water Fund, created by the state in 2023 legislation for water projects, which in turn only cites the Trib (neolibs) and the Texas Water Development Board (state agency). That even further settles that I am an independent leftist. 

Sierra and other Gang Greeners, I get. But, has nobody in the Texas Green Party read Cactus Ed Abbey's famous dictum that "Growth for growth's sake is the theology of the cancer cell"?

== 

Note to likes of Suzanne Bellsnyder: Agricultural wells are declining because of over-appropriation and climate change on the high plains, like your Texas Panhandle. Marc Reisner wrote about the former 40 years ago. I saw that in action 25-plus years ago in eastern New Mexico, as far as the Ogallala Aquifer.

Sadly, per Ballotpedia, all Democraps in both House and Senate supported it. (Twelve House Rethuglicans were opposed.) Also, sadly, no non-Gang Green environmental org, like Center for Biological Diversity, registered official opposition, whether or not speaking to that end. 

Here's another reason to vote NO on Proposition 4, Texans

I already gave you the basics two weeks ago, noting that Charles Perry's watery wet dream is an economic boondoggle and an environmental clusterfuck.

The Trib now offers more buttressing for both issues when it says the state doesn't know how much water all the data centers that are scrambling to be built will use.

Tex-ass being Tex-ass, of course,  all these data centers will get built out, without a bit of concern coming out of Austin. That's even though what's currently online or planned to go online will use nearly 3 percent of the state's current water by 2030.

This is an additional problem for other reasons.

Two are noted in the Trib. One of them is that some other states are requiring new data sites to have proved-up water supplies. The other is that Trump is pushing data centers here.

The reason noted by the Trib gets back to what I said about Prop 4 — climate change. 

Killing Prop 4 won't kill data centers already in the pipeline, of course. But, it could give local-level government an extra tool to play against centers NOT in the pipeline. It could also force the Lege to get more serious about water supply and in a better way than Charles Perry.

Texas outlets fluff Charles Perry's Proposition 4 instead of saying "vote no"

Proposition 4 is the constitutional amendment to create a permanent state water fund, with an automatic $1 billion per year diverted from state sales taxes into that fund.

Wingnuts, at least some, hate it because, at least for a decade, it establishes permanent funding without legislative approval, and other issues. 

The Trib, Lone Star Left, and presumably other librulz are lining up to kiss it.

Lone Star "Left," per Cactus Ed Abbey, seems to believe in growth for growth's sake without admitting that's the theology of the cancer cell.

Also wrong is is the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, clearly proving itself to still be Gang Green neoliberals in the environmental organization world, in an official support with no real analysis.  

I mean, that piece even admits voters are being offered a pig in a poke:

At least 50% of the annual allocations must go toward the New Water Supply for Texas Fund and the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT). The New Water Supply for Texas Fund supports various projects - some of which are highly controversial - that add to the total volume of water available to Texans, such as reservoir construction, seawater desalination, reuse of oil and gas wastewater (“produced water”), a statewide water conveyance system, acquisition of water from out of state, water and wastewater reuse, and aquifer storage and recovery. 

The focus of the SWIFT is solely on water infrastructure projects identified in the State Water Plan. This is an important accountability measure because it means there must be some level of support for the project locally for it to appear in the State Water Plan. However, there is no requirement for how this part of the funding must be split between the New Water Supply for Texas Fund and SWIFT.

But still says vote yes. 

The Texas branch of League of Women Voters is also wrong. 

Leftists for sure, and more clear-eyed liberals, should not. But for different reasons than wingnuts.

First, as I noted several weeks ago, even before state Sen. Charles Perry expanded his ideas to constitutional amendment level, it's a boondoggle. That was based on reporting by the Monthly, where Forrest Wilder said Perry was trying to revive "a failed 1960s solution."

Second, because the whole idea is the brainchild of a Texas wingnut, it takes climate change into zero account. Nor does it support conservation. But it DOES back environmentally destructive desalinization. And the "reuse" of old "produced" water from fracking.

On all of this, the media in general know it. Lone Star "Left" sure as hell knows, or should know, all of this. Hence "left" in scare quotes.

It also doesn't regulate groundwater pumping. And, Perry lives above the Ogallala Aquifer and knows it's running dry. (Maybe he's hoping to make a buck selling some of its water to East Texas.)

Let the state increase TCEQ grants and low-interest loans for local water infrastructure and get rid of the rest.

I didn't like Perry speaking question-free and interview-free at the Texas Press Association state convention, either.