09.30.08
HCG says county leaving itself and option on Carnes appeal
The latest Hutto Citizens Group (HCG) newsletter [.pdf] get’s us up-to-date on the latest with the landfill and the transmission lines. First on the landfill:
It appears that the negotiations on a revised landfill contract have stalled out and that Waste Management (WMI) won’t discuss a contract until the county authorizes permit amendment expansion application 1405-B to move forward at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In the opinion of the Hutto Citizens Group (HCG), moving the permit forward at TCEQ with WMI’s name on it as Operator or Site Operator would be a disaster for the county and its citizens, because TCEQ’s approval of the permit amendment in that form would give WMI total control of the landfill, which also would mean that WMI would have no incentive to negotiate seriously on a revised contract that would be more beneficial for the county than the current contract (approved in 2003) now in effect.
In essence WMI’s case is they won’t negotiate unless the county gives up it’s leverage. What will the commissioners do? Well one thing they should do is seriously pursue an appeal against Judge Carnes’ ruling against the county.
Media reports, including interviews conducted by reporters with county representatives as well as members of the HCG, indicate that the county is simply leaving itself the option of following up with a serious appeal, but not committing to do so at the present time.
[...]
However, for the county to preserve the ability to move forward with an appeal without actually pursuing the appeal seriously makes little sense, if that actually is what is happening. What is the upside to a motion which would “reserve the right” to appeal if an appeal isn’t going to be seriously pursued? The intervenors are moving forward with their appeal because of a belief that there is excellent legal basis for doing so, and there appears to be no good reason why the county shouldn’t do the same.
The intervenors of course include the HCG. Also in the newsletter they go through recent PUC vote adopting the LCRA/Oncor Energy path of transmission lines through Hutto.
In addition to rubber-stamping the so-called “fishhook” route which will run along Limmer Loop and proximate to some Hutto ISD facilities, the commissioners also endorsed the location of the much-criticized, transmission-level substation on the west side of Hutto which sits adjacent to a residential subdivision. Noise from the substation facility is expected to be significant as it is enlarged to handle the higher electric loads.
The HCG is not happy that their proposed solution wasn’t even considered.
The City of Hutto and Hutto Citizens Group, who intervened in the case, in addition to Hutto-area citizens, previously had asked the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), the LCRA, and the PUC to utilize right-of-way on the east side of SH-130 for the route of the lines, using monopole structures. However, when SOAH issued its Proposal for Decision (PFD), none of the six proposed routes included included the SH-130 scenario.
The omission of the Hutto citizens’ preferred route from the PFD occurred despite the major effort to have it included. As explained to the PUC commissioners at the meeting on September 11 by John Gordon, the expert witness for the City of Hutto and the HCG, his testimony regarding the preferred route at the SOAH hearing went without challenge through cross examination, yet Hutto’s view was dismissed, and the SH-130 route was not included among the six proposed routes.
Another interesting part is who did, and didn’t, show up to help the citizens of Hutto.
This unfortunate result–ignoring the preferred route along SH-130 using monopole structures–didn’t occur because Hutto failed to state its case at the SOAH hearing or at the PUC meeting on September 11. Gordon spelled out the situation clearly at SOAH, and at the PUC meeting on Thursday a retinue of speakers re-stated Hutto’s position. Those speakers included candidates for state representative from District 52 (Diana Maldonado, Democrat, and Brian Daniel, Republican), a candidate for the position of county attorney in Williamson County (Jaime Lynn, Democrat), the mayor pro-tem of the City of Hutto (David Begier), a Hutto city councilman (Felix Madrid) and the HCG president (Steven Salfelder). In addition to those speakers, also present supporting the Hutto position were Hutto city council members Debbie Holland and Ronnie Quintanilla-Perez, and Ed Broussard, the Hutto city manager.
Absent from the September 11 meeting at the PUC were the Williamson County attorney (Jana Duty), the Williamson County judge (Dan Gattis, Sr.), and the Williamson County Precinct 4 county commissioner (Ron Morrison). In fact, no elected official representing Williamson County was present.
The involvement of Bell County in the transmission line issue presents an interesting contrast to Williamson County. As referenced at the PUC meeting on September 11, Bell County Precinct 2 Commissioner Tim Brown worked successfully to get monopole structures along part of the transmission line route.
Elected officials that show up to help the people that elect them. Maybe our elected officials in Williamson County should try that? Instead of just helping those who fund their campaigns. And, with or without their help the HCG will continue to fight.
This issue involving the SH-130 route isn’t over. LCRA still must acquire right-ofway
for the route adopted by the PUC, and now that the details have been revealed regarding the mistake which was made, the LCRA directors obviously have a moral obligation to take a look at what can be done to fix what went wrong.It’s certain that the HCG will insist that the LCRA directors look into this matter and provide an answer, including explaining how such an error could have occurred, and what will be done to fix it.
And after the election, with two new commissioners and new County Attorney, they will be able to get their elected officials to help as well. Accountability comes in November.
wilcowatcher said,
October 1, 2008 at 8:10 am
I continue to find it amazing that little uprorar has occurred over Lynda Rife having her conflicted dual role as apparent recent-former “Community Relations Manager” for Waste Management – which entity has long been embroiled in a PR battle with the WCCC – and now “representing” the County – excuse me, representing the WCCC – in promoting the WCCC’s idea of what roads should be built where benefitting which developers as part of the Martin and Salinas team. This PR firm, with their accomplice – I mean subcontractor Lynda Rife of Rifeline, were given a $1M contract by the WCCC on 25 March which only recently has attracted the attention of the traditional media, though alert citizens and Eye on Williamson have been reporting on it since March.
Rife was shown on the web site for Waste Management’s operations at the Williamson County Landfill in Hutto as recently as September 6, 2008. If one Google’s on “”lynda rife” waste management”, one top return given is to http://williamsoncountylandfill.wm.com/community/relations.asp, the Comunity Relations page. Rife’s name isnt’ mentioned, and a Denise Fraser is shown as a contact. But if you view the cached version of the page, dated September 6, 2008, Rife’s name appears. Preserved for posterity, though is an October 2007 newsletter that shows Rife (and her @rifeline.com email address) as the go-to person if you as a citizen want to participate in WMI’s “Community Recommendations Committee.” We’ve seen how responsive WMI is to community input – similar to the WCCC’s responsiveness on issues. Maybe they’re equally tone deaf to community involvement due to the counsel of Ms. Rife? Maybe that’s why she was hired along with Martin and Salinas – give the impression of soliciting input while shutting it out entirely?
And isn’t this at least a moral or ethical conflict of interest for Ms. Rife, and at best a questionable decision by the WCCC to hire someone who had up until recently been representing one of their alleged arch enemies? Or… gasp, shudder… is the entire stinkin’ thing orchestrated, with public squabbles presented merely as a smokescreen???
Whatever it is, it smells, and I remain surprised that Rife’s duality, as well as this as yet another example of duality (or plurality?) by the WCCC hasn’t gotten far more attention than it has.
wilcowatcher said,
October 1, 2008 at 8:11 am
Oops – address for the WMI newsletter with Ms. Rife cited is http://williamsoncountylandfill.wm.com/Resources/Newsletter-Oct2007.pdf (unless/until it gets taken down…)
Eye on Williamson » Disappointed beyond words said,
October 1, 2008 at 9:51 am
[...] protect the constituents that elected them, they are abdicating the job they were elected to do. Unless they are serving another constituency. Returning these elected officials to office would be the same as telling them we approve of how [...]