The Cross Section, Volume 24, Number 9, September 1976 Page: 2
4 pages : illustrations, mapsView a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Page 2 THE CROSS SECTION September, 1976
A MONTHLY PUBLICATION OF THE HIGH
PLAINS UNDERGROUND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT NO. 1
2930 Avenue Q, Lubbock, Texas 79405
Telephone 762-0181
FRANK RAYNER, Editor
Second Class Postage Paid at Lubbock, Texas
District Office at Lubbock
Frank Rayner, P.E. __ _.. Manager
Don Smith ...... ._ ___.. Geologist
Don McReynolds ...-...___ .__ Geologist
Tony Schertz Draftsman
Obbie Goolsby __._ . Field Representative
J. Dan Scale -... Field Representative
Oscar Riemer Field Representative
Butch Bates-________. Field Representative
Clifford Thompson ---.. Head, Permit Section
Kenneth Carver __ Asst., Permit Section
Mrs. Norma Fite .._ Secretary-Bookkeeper
Mrs. Pennye Newberry ____._ _ Secretary
Miss Kathy Redeker ----- -------------ReceptionistWATER . . . continued from page 1
ing itself Citizens Against Water Taxes
has also been very vocal in opposition
to Proposition 1, but without com-
ment on Proposition 2.
Numerous water and other govern-
mental, municipal and industrial lead-
ers throughout the State have endorsed
Proposition 1. Governor Briscoe, the
Speaker of the Texas House of Rep-
resentatives, Bill Clayton of Spring--
lake, and the Lieutenant Governor,
William Hobby, Houston, have strong-
ly endorsed both Propositions 1 and
2. Governor Briscoe has appointed
Paul Veale, McAllen, to head a coali-
tion to promote the passage of Proposi-
tion 1.
Opponents to State loans for water
supply development and quality of
water improvement often cite the re-
portedly 25 million dollar drain (a
debt of approximately 25 cents per
person per annum) on the State treas-
ury to pay the indebtedness of the $2,-
350,000.00 water development bonds
that are presently outstanding.
Proponents are quick to point out
that it is illogical to assume that the
water development bonds could be
repaid at the same rate they are
loaned. They note that the State is
borrowing on a relatively short-term
basis and loaning on a long-term basis,
therefore, debt and interest outgo can-
not be expected to equal income at the
onset of such bond sales. Proponents
also point out that money must be
loaned before construction can com-
mence and water supply development,
utilization and repayment cannot com-
mence until construction is completed
-hence, the inevitable repayment lag
time.
Bonds Self Liquidating1 SECT-a-
SECIO[-OLDHAM POTTE
," H NO Nterest on the bonds sold; hence, the
fund appears to be perpetual, and for
some time in the future-probably un-
til the majority of the first 400 million,
and/or the second (proposed) 400
million (an aggregate of 800 million)
of bonds have been sold and the
money made available thereby loaned
-it will continue to appear to be so.
However, after the first 400 million
in bonds has been sold, the Water De-
velopment Board cannot sell addition-
al, or resell any retired, bonds that
were any part of the total 400 million
authorization. The same limitation
would apply to the second 400 mil-
lion in bonding, if same is approved
by the voters on November 2nd. This
is to say that over time the entire
principal, interest and service charges
on all water development bonding
must be repaid into the State treasury.
The present quandary raised by the
opponents of State loans for water de-
velopment, regarding the present so-
called drain on the State treasury,
could at some time in the future create
a quandary for some other special in-
terest group(s); when a similar fight
could develop on how the "surplus"
income from water development loans
repayment will be spent, and on or by
whom.
To aid The Cross Section reader to
evaluate the merits of their individual
support or opposition to Proposition
1, the applicable portion of SJR 49-
the constitutional amendment to be
voted on-is set forth below:
(a) Section 49-c of Article III of the
Texas Constitution is revised to read
as follows:
"Sec. 49-c. Texas Water Develop-
ment Bonds and Contracts
"(a) The issuance of Texas water
development bonds is hereby autho-
rized in an aggregate principal amount
not to exceed $400 million. The leg-development bonds is hereby autho-
rized in an aggregate principal amount
not to exceed $100 million, which
bonds may be issued only for such
water quality enhancement purposes
as prescribed by law.
"(c) Texas development bonds are
issued in such manner and installments
and upon such terms and conditions,
bear such rates of interest, and ma-
ture as prescribed by law. The legis-
lature shall provide by law for such
other implementation of this section as
the legislature determines appropriate.
"(d) Texas w a t e r development
bonds are secured by the full faith and
credit of the state, and there is hereby
appropriated out of the first money
coming into the treasury in each fiscal
year, not otherwise appropriated by
this constitution, an amount which is
sufficient to pay the principal and in-
terest on such bonds that mature or
become due during such fiscal year,
less the amount in the sinking fund
at the close of the prior fiscal year.
No bonds authorized under this sec-
tion may be issued without prior ap-
proval of the attorney general and
registration by the comptroller of pub-
lic accounts; after approval, registra-
tion, and delivery to the purchaser
the bonds are incontestable.
"(e) The legislature by law may pro-
vide for the execution of contracts in
excess of two years duration between
the state or a state agency and the
United States or any of its agencies to
acquire or develop storage facilities
in reservoirs constructed or to be con-
structed by the federal government.
Contracts executed under this sub-
section are general obligations of the
state and are part of the state debt
authorized under Subsection (a) of
this section.
"(f) No state fund established for
purposes of water development, whe-ther funded by the sale of Texas water
development bonds or from other
sources, may be used to finance a
project that contemplates or results in
removing surface water from the river
basin of origin if the surface water is
necessary to supply the reasonablyforeseeable water requirements of the
basin for the ensuing 50 years. This
subsecion does not apply to a removal
of water on a temporary, interim basis.
However, no such state fund may be
used for the development of water re-
source; from the Mississippi River.
"(g) The aggregate amount of bonds
and contracts authorized by this sec-
tion ii 'ludes Texas water development
bond v and contracts issued before the
effective date of this amendment.
Texas water development bonds or
other evidences of indebtedness issued
before the effective date of this amend-
ment remain valid and enforceable in
accordance with their terms and sub-
ject to all applicable terms and con-
ditions. The state or a state agency
shall continue to provide for a source
or sources of payment in accordance
with the terms of these bonds or other
evider-es of indebtedness until the
obliga ions are paid in full.
"(h) No single water development
project requiring an expenditure of
proceeds of Texas water development
bonds in an aggregate amount in ex-
cess of $35 million may be under-
taken unless:
"(1) the expenditure is approved by
concurrent resolution adopted by a
majority of the members of each house
of the legislature; or
"(2) the project is a part of a state-
wide water development plan approved
by concurrent resolution adopted by a
major y of the members of each house
of the legislature."
(b) Subdivisions (a) and (c) of the
constitutional amendment proposed by
this section do not become effective
until implemented by law.
(c) Sections 49-d and 49-d-1 of
Article III of the Texas Constitution
are repealed.
(d) The constitutional amendment
proposed by this section is to be sub-mitted o a vote of the qualified elec-
tors at an election to be held on the
first flesday after the first Monday in
Novemrb5er, 1976, at which election the
ballots re to provide for voting for or
against> the proposition: "The constitu-
continued on page 4 . . . WATER.em
- t p
-
a i
=1There is considerable confusion as
to how much water development bond-
ing can be accomplished under the 400
millions already authorized, and the
400 million as proposed, since the pro-
cedures (as set forth by the Texas
Legislature) for the disposition of the
funds received in the State treasury
as a result of the repayment of the
principal, interest and service charges
on the presently outstanding water de-
velopment loans, provides that such
funds will be placed in a "sinking
fund", to repay the principal and in-islature by a record affirmative two-
thirds vote of the membership of each
house may authorize the issuance of all
or any part of an additional aggregate
principal amount of Texas water de-
velopment bonds not to exceed $400
million. Bonds authorized under this
subsection may be issued only for such
water development purposes as pre-
scribed by law.
"(b) The issuance of Texas waterP~ F
A 25-member delegation, consisting of directors of Nebraska National Resource
Districts, the Nebraska Association of Resource Cistricts, the Nebraska Agricul-
tural Extension Service, the University of Nebraska and some individual irrigation
farmers visited in the District offices on August 25th to review the District's
groundwater management programs. This is the third such delegation from Ne-
braska to visit this District. The Nebraska delv;rtion also travelled to Roswell,
New Mexico, to review the groundwater programs of the New Mexico State Engi-
neers Office in the Roswell basin.Page 2
September, 1976
T HE CR O SS S EC T IO N
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 (Tex.). The Cross Section, Volume 24, Number 9, September 1976, periodical, September 1976; Lubbock, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1533018/m1/2/: accessed June 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.