What is so bad about the “apply market valuation” clause in SB 792?

Q. Does this clause give landowners a better price for land confiscated by eminent domain?
A. No, in this bill, they are referring to market valuation for the ENTIRE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT rather than for getting an appraisal on the real estate before they pay the land owner. There are rules that apply to acquisition of land by eminent domain which will not be changed by this phrase in this bill.

Q. What is Market Valuation as used in HB 792?
A. What they are referring to is HOW THEY VALUE the land years after it is acquired, how they VALUE the entire infrastructure throughout the life of the contract.

Q. Is it a common practice?
A. Applying Market Valuation to state highway projects is a new concept. Market Valuation is a private sector practice where an owner of an asset values that asset over time as the value of the real estate escalates. As demand for adjacent property rises, rental and usage fees rise to reflect what the private company would have to pay for that house or business or real estate on the day they lease it to a user. For example, a friend of mine rents a house she purchased for $20,000.00 but which appraises on today’s market for $45,000.00. Years ago she charged $150.00 a month for rent but today she charges $750.00 a month for a tenant to rent the house.
This is a common practice in the public sector because she used her personal funds or credit to acquire the property. She is not a public housing authority which uses public funds.

Q. Why is it a such "big deal" in this particular bill?
A. Until a few years ago, only public toll authorities were legally allowed to build toll roads in Texas. With changes in the law, we now allow private companies to partner with the state to build toll roads. We also have public toll authorities which build toll roads in Texas. Public and private toll companies are in competition for bids on lucrative projects. Public toll companies (like NTTA) have an advantage in the bidding process because they operate on different rules than private companies like Cintra. A private company is supposed to invest private investor capital into the project and the private investors, wherever they live in the world, get a return on their investment and they can spend or invest that money anywhere in the world in any kind of project they choose. A public authority uses taxpayers money as an agent of the people and the return or user fees goes back into the public coffers, not to private investors. The return must remain in the region for use on public works projects for the public good.

Q. What about use of right of way?
A. If a private company use right of way owned by the state, frequently they must pay a today’s value for that right of way when they acquire the right to use it because they are a company of private investors making a profit off of the taxpayer’s assets. A public authority should not have to pay today's value for acquisition of the right of way because they are agents of the people, whose money was used to acquire the asset and who will be the customers who use the finished transportation project. Profit (or return on stockholders investment) should not apply to public works (public toll authorities) projects.

A. Are there any exceptions?Q. In some versions of legislation that have been passed by various houses of the Texas Legislature (but which have not to date been signed by the Governor), there was language to allow private or public toll authorities to utilize the right of way at the same cost or no cost and not include the difference between what it actually cost the state to acquire the right of way and what the right of way costs today (market valuation) into the project cost. The idea is to try to keep project cost down so lower costs would allow lower usage fees to the public. But that language was an EXCEPTION to normal practices in the private market place.

Q. When Market Valuation is applied to a project, does it apply to anything other than the real estate cost?
A, Yes. By applying market valuation to a project means each year value would would be base on what it would have cost to build that project that year, instead of what it actually cost to build it when it was built. That means calculating what supplies would have cost at current rates of inflation, what real estate would cost if acquired during the year when they are computing the current year's market valuation, what labor would cost now vs. during the year it was actually built. Applying market valuation means that building supplies, labor, land cost, engineering fees, studies, actually every project cost is calculated based on the current rate of inflation and cost for those design/build/acquire elements for the project based on the cost in each year of the contract. It is suspected that projects will cost much more 50 years from now than they do today. Applying market valuation to a project means that what it would cost to build that project 50 years from now is the cost that will be used to calcuate the rates in the formula used to calculate user fees and potential buy-back costs.

Michael Morris of the NCTCOG RTC says that every project they have escalates in cost about a billion dollars a year. Applying Market Valuation to a public toll project would mean that instead of the project costs remaining what was ACTUALLY SPENT by the government on behalf of the people to build that project, they will be artificially applying a bookkeeping model to the project cost each year which will include what it would cost should they build that project at different years in the contract.

Q. Why did Gov. Perry insist that this language be inserted in SB 792?
A. That is a good question and the only way to answer it is to speculate. Pushing application of Market Valuation to public toll projects levels the playing field between Cintra and the NTTA. It removes the advantage of using a public toll authority to build the project. Rick Perry received substantial campaign contributions from Zachry and Zachry family members and associates during each election cycle he has been in office. Zachry is Cintra's partner and TxDOT favors Zachry-Cintra as contractor for the lucrative TTC project and for SH121. TxDOT was not pleased when legislation was passed which required allowing public toll authorities have the "right of first refusal" in bidding on projects in their region.

I think that requiring application of Market Valuation to public toll authorities bids is a tool that Perry’s administration is trying to use so that Cintra and private investors will have a better chance to win state highway toll contracts. (Private investors charge the taxpayer twice what most public toll authorities charge the public to use the infrastructure).

Q. Why shouldn't they apply Market Valuation to a public project?
A.MARKET VALUATION OF A PROJECT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR SHOULD NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE PUBLIC IS BOTH THE INVESTOR AND THE USER.
A public toll authority is supposed to build the project at as low a cost as possible and any return on investment is actually taxpayer’s money and must be invested in other public infrastructure in the region for the benefit of the people or returned to the taxpayer through payments to the government.
The funding for a public toll project is taxpayer funding – either gas money, public bonds, etc.

Market valuation is not something they push so that land owners get more when their land is claimed by eminent domain. It is a technique they are trying to misapply to public toll authorities to make them act like private companies like Cintra. A public company's assets belong to the state/taxpayer and they are supposed to operate at the lowest cost to the taxpayer to use those assets. That is why states and public toll authorities buy right of way years in advance at lower costs than what the market would value that real estate in the year they actually break ground or later in the contract, in the year in which the driver is actually driving on that real estate. After all, it is taxpayer money that pays for the real estate and for the bonds that build the infrastructure.

Q. What is the difference between a private and a public toll authority?
A. In a private company, private investor money is investedto acquire the asset. Their stockowners want as great a return as possible on their investment. They apply market valuation to the project each year they own the asset, modeling what the land and construction costs would be if acquired and built each year instead of what it actually cost them to acquire and build the asset when the land was actually bought and the project was actually built. Each year, market valuation is used to set rental rates and prices charged to "customers" or tenants. This allows the investors, private people, to get the greatest return on their initial investment. The investors are different from the customers.

A governmental (public) entity building an infrastructure project is acting as an agent of the people. Their customer or renter is the taxpayer, and the government as an agent of the taxpayer, invests the taxpayers money as capital to build the project. Market Valuation is not applied to public projects because the taxpayer, (who is also the investor who puts up the capital), is not seeking PROFIT like a private shareholder. The public, or taxpayer, is seeking to have access to the infrastructure at the lowest possible cost.
It is of no benefit to the investor (taxpayer) in a public project to apply MARKET VALUATION BOOKKEEPING MODELING TECHNIQUES to the project each year the road is used. The investor is the user and the user wants the cost to remain as low as possible for him (the taxpayer) to use their public infrastructure asset.

Q. What harm does it do if they track what it would cost to build the project each year if it were built in that year?
A. Knowing what it would cost to build it each year is somewhat different from "Applying Market Valuation" to a project as used in SB 792. Applying market valuation to SH 161 could allow use of inflated building costs and land values to influence the rate of the tolls. It could mean that more public money would be required should the state decided to terminate the contract before the 50th year. Applying Market Valuation means using each year's market valuation in the modeling for toll rates rather than "just knowing" the value of the infrastructure.

A. Why is it so important that we call all the North Texas Delegation and object to their voting to allow Market Valuation to remain in this bill?
B. The cost to the taxpayer to use a public assess constructed by a public toll authority using taxpayers resources should not escalate over time as adjacent real estate escalates n price. Appling MARKET VALUATION to public toll authorities projects as used in SB 792 will force public toll authorities to pretend like they are private entities and they will be raising the cost to the user over time as the real estate costs rises in the market place for adjacent land. Even though the state acquired the land years ago with taxpayer money so that the cost to the taxpayer to use the infrastructure would be low, the rules will be turned upside down and the taxpayer will see their user fees rise as adjacent real estate costs rise.


Q. What is so bad about the “apply market valuation” clause in SB 792?
A. Gov. Perry and TxDOT wants MARKET VALUATION APPLIED because this will generate “more revenue out of the ground” for right of way already owned by the state and paid for by taxpayer dollars without giving any additional benefit to the taxpayer.
TxDOT and Perry and probably the NCTCOG RTC favors applying MARKET VALUATION to public toll projects because it will “justify” higher tolls and enable greater amounts of surplus toll revenue to travel from the project into the TxDOT/RTC coffers for use on other projects. (We’ll see how much of it trickles down and actually gets spent on infrastructure and how much evaporates in transit). TxDOT favors it because it insures lots of transportation engineers will continue getting paychecks should federal funds dry up because we miss air quality attainment standards.

Q. Who loses if SB 762 is passed with language requring application of Market Valuation to public toll projects in it?
A. The taxpayer. Taxpayers pay for the right of way then it is acquired with gas tax money. Applying market valuation to the project gives private investment companies like Cintra an advantage in bidding. It costs the taxpayer about twice more to use a project constructed by a private toll authority than it should cost if constructed by a public toll authority. Then by applying market valuation to the project, the project cost escalates on paper each year with inflation removing the advantage of having used tax money years ago to acquire right of way. The people get charged on paper artificially high prices for the right of way that was already paid for with the people's money when it is incorporated into a toll project. Then each year, as inflation increases and what it would have cost to build that project in each successive year of the contract rises, they get to apply this MARKET VALUATION TOOL to the project, and can use it to possibly charge greater cost to the public when citizen-taxpayers drive on the highway.
On every front, the taxpayer gets gouged. Double taxation. Escalated values instead of real cost. Inflated user fees “justified” by market valuation in different years of the project.

What they are attempting to do is to jack up the COST of the project on paper so that they can "justify" higher toll rates and higher project costs so that they'll be able to justify artificially jacking up the project pay off cost should the state decide to reacquire the project at some time in the future. The higher the project cost, the easier it is to justify billions more of surplus toll revenue.

We purchase right of way years in advance so that it will require less of the taxpayers money when it is time for us to build new highway infrastructure and it will cost less to the taxpayers to use that infrastructure. Because public taxpayer money was used, the public should be able to use that infrastructure at as low a cost as is absolutely possible during every year of the contract or life of that infrastructure. The entire CDA to generate surplus toll revenue to give to the RTC concept turns the entire concept on its head. Instead of doing it so the citizens can use it as inexpensively as possible, it is build it and now APPLY MARKET VALUATION TO IT in such a way that the citizen will be fleeced as much as possible every time they put their tires on the highway.

TTC & NAIS Unraveling - part 3

Premise Registration of pets and farm animals is a FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL initiative that is worming its way through state legislatures across American. In 2005 a one page bill was passed by the Texas Legislature and signed into law. It has not been implemented yet. Texans who are furious about the Trans Texas Corridor Toll Road landgrab are standing with Ranchers who are opposed to the implementation of mandatory microchip ID for animals and premise registration.

Outrage is bridging partisian boundaries. Liberals, progressives, moderates, conservatives, ultra conservatives and even those who are normally politically apathetic united in Austin March 1st and 2nd, sending clear messages.

Don't Tag my pets, Don't register my home or farm as a premise! Don't take my land!

The message was clearly conveyed: Trans Texas Corridor -- Zachry, Cintra, TxDot, Rick Perry: STAY OFF MY LAND! "My Land is NOT Your Land" was the battle cry.

Why should this matter to people who live in Pennsylvania, New York, Oklahoma, and other states? It matters because these "policies" are being pushed from Washington down to the states. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot) announced the selection of Cintra, a Spanish based corporation to manage part of an existing State Highway (SH-121) as a private/public partnership toll road. Cintra, with Texas based Zachry Construction, has been chosen by TxDot to build and operate the massive Trans Texas Corridor. Contracts have not been signed. They must be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Committee.

During the past three years, massive portions of the Texas Transportation Code was revoked or amended . Much TTC and private/public partnership toll project language was inserted into numerous bills in both houses of the Texas Legislature. Many of the Senators and State Representatives who sponsored and voted for the changes received generous campaign contributions from Zachry and other businesses and individuals with financial interests in the TTC.

Last week the Texas Senate Committee on Transportation held an eight hour hearing on SH-121 and the TTC. People came from all over the State. They had to open two additional large hearing rooms and connect them with live television feeds to accommodate the hundreds of Texans who drove to Austin for the hearing.
(Videotaped testimony is available at http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchive/ (Select March 1 Senate Committee on Transportation & Homeland Security Hearing Regarding the Trans Texas Corridor)

It is challenging to unravel the methodology which was utilized to sell local and State officials on this massive land grab. It is an ill-conceived overly expensive plot. Similar things are occurring in other States. Driven from Washington, legislation to change laws to implement the NAIS and Public Private Toll Road Partnerships have turned Texas into the frontline for national implementation of significant and far-reaching changes in property rights, transportation financing, removal of appropriation control from elected legislative bodies to control of obscure bodies of political appointees. It is probable that Governor Rick Perry's close ties to George W. Bush and Bush's ties in Austin resulted in Texas acquiring the dubious "pleasure" of being selected as the pilot for the Bush Administrations "vision" for revamping the nation's transportation and homeland security. NAIS is definitely Washington driven. National Animal Identification System is a Federal Initiative with joint Agriculture, FDA and Homeland Security oversight!

This is the third in a five part series of journals on the uproar in Texas. Citizens have banded together demanding repeal of legislation which mandates computer chip animal identification and premise registration and of TTC enabling language.


SO HOW DID WE GET HERE? HOW CAN WE INSURE THESE BAD POLICIES CONTINUE TO UNRAVEL?
Rick Perry was re-elected governor in 2006 with the lowest percentage of votes cast for any winning governorial candidate in Texas in modern history. Many more Texans voted for statewide candidates for Agriculture Commissioner and Attorney General who did not win the election than voted for Rick Perry. Incumbents who have been Perry adminstration team players watched massive numbers of their constituents voice disapproval of the TTC at TxDOT hearings all over Texas last summer. They saw support shift from conservative incumbent to anti-TTC populist challengers. Now many who have sponsored TTC enabling legislation or voted in favor of it are back peddlings, saying "I want a do over!"

It takes a lot to get a lot of thousands Texans motivated enough to descend on Austin at one time. Austin is not the easiest place to get to in Texas. Trains only run through Austin once a day. Air service isn't the greatest. Highways are congested and there always seems to be some construction project on the more narrow, overcrowded corridors. It was probably by design. Legislators have historically been viewed by Texans as problems which need to be contained. Constitutionally, State Representatives are "part-time" and the Legislative session is much shorter than in many smaller states with greater population. My College History and Political Science professors all said it was because Texans fear that they'll do too much damage if given more time. Yet last week between 5000 to 6000 people from all over Texas took to the streets. They hauled their horses, chickens, tractors, goats and family pets and marched down Congress Avenue to the State Capitol. It was Texas Independence Day and Texans were declaring INDEPENDENCE over current tyrrany!

Examination of the butcher job they've done on Transportation and Agriculture codes in the past 2 years gives us good cause for such caution. Some of the most far-reaching, radical changes to the Transportation Code were passed in the middle of the night. Much of what has brought us to this particular place occurred in small working groups, at privately funded transportation seminars, in poorly advertised "public meetings" of obscure committees in Councils of Government all over the state. TTC enabling language was presented to Legislative Counsel by attorney's working for various special interest and the language made its way into numerous pieces of legislation in both houses. The clients of these attorneys can hide behind "attorney client privilege", circumventing the ethics rules. The attorneys are able to avoid disclosing who they are representing and these visits are not classified as "Lobbyist" activity! It is not a loophole. It is not even a hole the size of a barn door. It is more like an opening the size of the pasture where the barn should be standing!

A one page bill (C.S.H.B. 1361) passed inro law in Texas September 1, 2005 (but not yet implemented)requires mandatory registration of all premises with animals or poultry, mandatory computerchip ID system, and 24-hour reporting of death or transfer of animal ownership. With only a few paragraphs the way farming, ranching and ownership of horses and domestic pets was reengineered (at least on paper). The cost to implement this program are astounding --on both the bureaucratic level. The shift in privacy rights, property rights, and potential civil rights resulting from implementation of NAIS are mind boggling. We'll explore them in greater detail in journals later this week.

Rick Perry's administration will probably become known as one of the most corrupt administrations in the past quarter of a century. Media doesn't really cover what goes on policy wise in Austin very throughly. Transportation stories usually get buried in obscure places in newspapers. It is difficult to explain complex scenarios in television news bites. Most assignment editors think that the public just isn't all that interested in what the Legislature does. Fortunately the internet and search engines allow us to get some coverage of "our tax dollars at work!" Shame that they are usually not working for us!

The cherry on top is that the folks in public office in Austin are the ones that the majority of Texans (probably) voted for. I say probably because we have had some really big problems with the electronic voting machines -- especially with how accurately they tabulate the votes. During the 2006 Primary, there was over a 100,000 vote tabulation error in Tarrant County and many other snafu's reported in other counties. Few of us are confident that anyone really knows how many people voted for any one candidate. But a lot of people have invested time, and money and faith in the folks in Austin. It is difficult to accept the truth about people you have supported and trusted. Denial reigns supreme in many circles.

When it comes to faith in Texas incumbents, I haven't invested much faith in any of them. There are a few that occasionally get my attention and surprise me pleasantly. Whether Republican or Democrat, I usually try give them a call when I see them do anything good that impresses me. However, I don't have to spend a lot of time on such calls because overall, most of them never rise above C-, even when they "pleasantly surprise" me!

There is nothing that says you have to be intelligent to be elected to the Texas Legislature. There are some who are very intelligent. There are some who are relatively honest. There are few who are both honest and intelligent. They are responsible for that but the voters are the ones who are responsible for selecting them. And we entrust them with setting policies which are complex and have far-reaching consequence to billions of people every day. Selecting the least qualified, academically challenged and intellectually deficient candidates seems to be a pattern of both major parties -- in Texas and elsewhere. (One example is the election of Paula Hightower-Pierson, a high-school drop-out who did not return to school to get a college education, as a Democratic State Representative in 2006). State Party leaders (and the media) tend to rate candidates only in terms of how much money they can access for media buys rather than on credentials, track record, character or intellect!

Once elected, most legislators rely on the Legislative Counsel (and lowly paid staff) to explain the bills and language contained in bills. Counsel frequently relies on contacts from trade groups who come to them on behalf of unnamed entities with language for bills. It is difficult to determine who staffers rely on for their interpretation of complex policies and legislation! Now that there has been consistent, loud, sometimes stringent outcry from Texans from all political parties on the Cintra-Zachry TTC deal and NAIS, many Senators and State Representatives are are saying that they 'didn't understand' what they were doing when they sponsored certain TTC enabling legislation. Many of them probably didn't comprehend the implications in the language of the bills they put their names on as author or sponsor. However, for many, it probably just appears better politically to them right now to try to deny it and distance themselves as far as possible from their previous positions and votes.

A former State Representative told me that he thinks that many of them probably didn't have a clue what language in the TTC Transportation bills really meant. They were told that private public partnerships for toll roads would help them keep gasoline taxes low. Since they'd raided the designated transportation funds and refused to call for bond issues or raises to the gasoline tax for decades for highway construction, they grasp for straws. Legislative session after legislative session for over 20 years, highway and bridge maintenance has been deferred. Population explosions in the major urban centers has resulted in increased urban sprawl and traffic gridlock. Federal funds for rail and mass transit dried up and cities and counties looked for sources (other than local tax money or bond elections) for local transportation projects.

There is a lot of cronyism and out and out thievery in Austin. But the buck really rests with those of us in the hinterlands. We're the folks who allowed them to be elected to office and we're the folks who have allowed them to continue there. There are ways to rein-in errant elected officials. One immediate thing we can do is continue to exert pressure on the Texas Legislature to repeal NAIS. Here is a background paper on legislation that will change "mandatory" to "voluntary".

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/79R/analysis/doc/HB01361H.doc

Amazing how one short, one page document can raise so much havoc in so very very many lives.

C.S.H.B. 1361 By: Hardcastle
Agriculture & Livestock Committee Report (Substituted)
… Because of its complexity, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) plans on phasing in the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). It is vital that Texas develop and implement within the state an animal identification program that is consistent with that of the USDA.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that rulemaking authority is expressly granted to the Texas Animal Health Commission in SECTION 1 of this bill.

ANALYSIS

This bill creates an animal identification program to provide for disease control and to enhance the ability to trace disease-infected animals, which is consistent with the United States Department of Agriculture's National Animal Identification System. The Texas Animal Health Commission (Commission) may require the use of official identification numbers and may establish a date by which all premises must be registered. The Commission may further assess a registration fee on all entities that register for a premises identification number. This bill provides that information collected by the Commission is exempt from public disclosure requirements. The bill authorizes the Commission to disclose information to certain persons, including a governmental entity. The bill provides for penalties for failure to comply with the Commission's order. The bill authorizes the Commission to adopt, implement and enforce rules for the animal identification system.

EFFECTIVE DATE

This Act takes effect September 1, 2005.

CALL TO ACTION ON NAIS:

Status in Texas In 2005, the Texas Legislature adopted HB 1361, codified at §161.056 of the Agriculture Code, authorizing the TAHC to implement NAIS on a mandatory basis in Texas. The TAHC proposed mandatory regulations for premises registration in December 2005, but withdrew them after a public outcry.
In November 2006, the USDA stated that it does not intend to adopt mandatory federal regulations, so there is no federal law or regulation requiring implementation of this program by Texas.
Issues
The NAIS will cause a variety of problems:
• Massive intrusion into people’s lives: individuals will have to provide detailed information about their property, businesses, and their own movements to government and private databases;
• Burden on property rights: the premises registration number will attach to the land forever, and people’s rights to manage their land and animals will be restricted;
• High costs: registration, tagging, and reporting all carry costs in both time and money;
• Loss of small farmers and ranchers: many will be unable to afford the program, or unwilling to accept the government intrusion;
• Damage to the economy: businesses that rely on small farmers, such as sales barns, supply stores, and even tourism, will be harmed;
• Reduced choices and increased costs for consumers;
• Violation of many Americans’ religious beliefs; and
• Increased government bureaucracy and waste of taxpayer dollars. Neither the USDA nor the TAHC has performed a cost analysis of the program. Costs for similar programs in other countries are estimated to range from $37/head to $69/head. According to the 2002 USDA census and a 1998 study, Texans own over 14 million cattle, 1 million sheep, 1 million goats, and 1 million horses, the majority of which are on small farms. The NAIS will likely cost Texans hundreds of millions of dollars.
The NAIS will not provide benefits to justify these costs.
The stated purpose of the NAIS is to provide 48-hour traceback to address animal disease. But the NAIS does not address the critical issues for disease prevention and control:
• the causes of disease, especially differences in management;
• the vectors of disease transmission, including wild animals, insects, and imports;
• testing for disease, including tests for Mad Cow and other food-safety issues; and
• the unique issues posed by each species and each disease Contrary to claims, the NAIS will not protect against bio-terrorism.
Terrorists are unlikely to target hobby animal owners and small farmers. Microchips are vulnerable to cloning and computer viruses. The type of microchip specifically recommended for horses and cattle, the ISO microchip, is designed to be reprogrammable, so anyone can easily change the numbers.
The large databases will provide an easy target for hackers. Indeed, even without intentional tampering, the large databases will be unmanageable, as has already been found in Australia. The USDA has stated that NAIS is not a food safety program. Under NAIS, tracking ends when the animal is killed at the slaughterhouse. Most food-borne illnesses occur because of contamination from poor practices after slaughter. NAIS will do nothing to address these issues. Food safety needs to be addressed by increased standards and inspection of food processing facilities, including testing for Mad Cow Disease.
The final stated justification for the NAIS is to improve the export market. However, there are better ways to reach agreement with Japan and other foreign countries, including allowing those meat packers who wish to export beef to test their animals for BSE.
If tracing is a market benefit, let the market implement it, not a mandatory government program using our tax dollars. The USDA also has a “Process Verified Program,” which allows qualifying suppliers to market themselves as “USDA Process Verified,” including age and source verified. Any such program should be voluntary, non-coercive, allow for true competition, and paid for by the participants so that it does not distort market forces.

Some of the alternatives to NAIS for improving animal health
• Develop educational programs for animal owners, addressing disease prevention through animal management and biosecurity, and identification of diseases requiring the intervention of a vet.
• Improve training for veterinarians in recognizing foreign and emerging animal diseases and develop a protocol for the use of rapid diagnostic tools in the field. (recommended by the United States Government Accountability Office in GAO-05-214 (Mar. 2005))
• Increase inspections of animals and agricultural products entering into Texas.
• Consider existing mechanisms for tracking livestock: brucellosis program, scrapie program, tuberculosis program, brand system, sales and slaughter records, and producers’ records. Analyze the costs and benefits of minor modifications to existing programs and alternative programs, such as a “book-end” system (i.e. no tracking of movements) that uses non-electronic means of identification when the animal enters the stream of commerce.
• Conduct scientific modeling to identify high-risk situations and quantify important factors, such as the level of contagion, the means of transmission, and the severity of the diseases of concern.

Proposed legislation HB 461 would amend the current statute to limit the TAHC’s authority to a voluntary program. HB 637 would also limit the program to voluntary only. HB 637 also:
(1) bars any coercive measures from being used; and
(2) requires full disclosure before any person can be enrolled in the program, and provides an unrestricted right to withdraw from it.
This legislation would allow the TAHC to develop NAIS as a voluntary, market-driven program, consistent with the USDA’s November 2006 announcements.

Crossposted on Daily Kos, Texas Kos and Diatribune.

Them Fires on the Texas Prairie

There's more than one kind of prairie fire

1. Between elected officials and them that "brung em to the dance"
2. Between Aggie Engineers and Aggie Farmers and Ranchers
3. Between Historians and Legislators
4. Between Environmentalist and Legislators and Contractors
5. Between Grassroots Democrats who are looking at turn-coat money grubbing Democrats in office who are voting with big money interests on the TTC and who received donations from Zachry
6. Between Grassroots Republicans who are looking at incumbent Republicans who they helped elect who are supporting the TTC and who took money from toll road special interests
7. Between Local governments and regional transportation planning entities who are endorsing the TTC and local voters who are mad because their officials are endorsing it without listening to the people

We had devastating grass fires in much of this state which left thousands of acres of farm/ranch land charred. Much of rural Texas was declared a National Disaster. The TTC is the defining insulting swipe at those same people. When it is an act of nature (or even arson which got further out of hand) it is devastating. However, the TTC is something that governmental officials are deliberately DOING to the Ranchers, Farmers, homeowners and tax payers of Texas.

"Remember the Alamo" will be mild compared to the battle cry of "Remember TTC" before this is over.