KTBB News, Weather, Talk

AUSTIN – The Houston Chronicle reports that a complaint stemming from the Texas General Land Office’s allocation of Harvey disaster recovery funds, which originally awarded no money to Houston or Harris County from a $1 billion distribution, has been escalated to the Civil Rights division of the Department of Justice. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development asked the Justice Department on Wednesday to take action against the GLO after finding that it had violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against Black and Hispanic residents when it designed a competition to allocate the relief money. HUD’s review of the GLO’s funding process revealed that the state agency had engaged in a pattern of “discriminatory actions based on race and national origin,” wrote Ayelet Weiss, assistant general counsel for HUD’s Office of Fair Housing Enforcement, in a letter to the Justice Department.

In a separate letter sent to state officials, HUD told the GLO that it knowingly denied communities critical funding, and “compounded the harm” that residents suffered from Hurricane Harvey. The new correspondence affirmed HUD’s previous finding of descrimination in 2022 against the GLO. At that time, the Justice Department said it would defer consideration of the matter until HUD wrapped up its fair housing investigation. In a statement, Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham said “political activists” embedded in HUD by the Biden administration have made false discrimination claims against the GLO for years. “Last time HUD sent this political stunt to the DOJ, the fake claims were rejected for lacking substance – in less than 48 hours,” Buckingham said. “The fact is, the HUD-approved plan overwhelmingly benefited minorities and there simply was no discrimination. No other state has performed as efficiently and effectively as Texas in providing disaster recovery and mitigation funding to communities and residents. Our only goal is to serve those we are supposed to serve and do it well.” Former mayor and now U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner said Wednesday that while he was glad the findings were being sent to the Justice Department, he was frustrated by the amount of time it took to hold the GLO accountable. Houston residents whose lives were devastated by Harvey should have received federal aid years ago, Turner said, and instead the GLO diverted those funds to communities in lesser need.

EAGLE PASS – President-elect Donald Trump will pick Mike Banks, a special advisor to Gov. Greg Abbott for border matters, to lead the U.S. Border Patrol, according to the New York Post.

Banks, a retired Border Patrol agent, has served as Texas’ “border czar” since 2023 when Abbott created the position. The press offices for the Trump administration’s transition team and Abbott’s office did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment.

Banks served as a border advisor amid the state’s all-out effort to control the southern border with Mexico, dubbed Operation Lone Star, and its confrontations with the Biden administration over immigration enforcement, which has long been the sole responsibility of the federal government. As part of the mission, Department of Public Safety troopers and National Guard soldiers have been deployed to the border, where they have installed miles of concertina wire and a floating buoy barrier in the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass while also arresting thousands of migrants on criminal trespassing charges.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters in Washington D.C. Thursday that Trump’s pick was a “great choice.”

“I know Mike, and I think it’s an inspired choice, and nobody understands the border better than Texans,” Cornyn said. “Texas obviously has the biggest border, longest border, and I really like the idea that we’re going to have somebody who understands the Texas border.”

This article was originally published by The Texas Tribune. To read the original article, click here.

TEXAS – Stateline reports that every state has a committee of medical and public health experts tasked with investigating deaths that occur during and after pregnancy. But as data paints a clearer picture of the impact that state policies such as abortion bans and Medicaid expansion can have on maternal health, leaders in some states are rushing to limit their review committee’s work — or halt it altogether. In November, Georgia officials dismissed all 32 members of the state’s maternal mortality review committee after investigative reporters used internal committee documents to link the deaths of two women to the state’s six-week abortion ban. In September, Texas announced its committee would not review 2022 and 2023 maternal deaths — the two years immediately following its near-total abortion ban. And two years ago, Idaho effectively disbanded its committee when conservative groups went after members for calling on the state to extend Medicaid coverage for postpartum women.

In March, Arkansas Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders created her own maternal health advisory group after Arkansas’ maternal mortality review committee, like Idaho’s, recommended extending the amount of time that low-income postpartum women can qualify for Medicaid coverage — something Sanders has staunchly opposed. The maternal mortality rate for U.S. women is far higher than in any other high-income country, and Black women are more than twice as likely to die during pregnancy or after birth than the national average. Research has shown most of these maternal deaths are preventable. State officials have given varying reasons for their decisions. Sanders has called an extension of postpartum Medicaid “duplicative” because Arkansas has other insurance options. The maternal mortality review committee chair in Texas said the panel would skip a full review of the 2022 and 2023 deaths in order to offer analysis and recommendations based on the most recently available data. And Georgia’s state health officer said she dismissed committee members because they violated state law by sharing confidential information. Georgia plans to replace them with new appointees.

LUBBOCK — It was 2014. Charles Perry was moving from the Texas House of Representatives to the Senate. The Panhandle lawmaker had several priorities, including water and how it gets to Texans.

“We must continue looking into ways to conserve and develop our water infrastructure and resources at both a state and local level,” Perry told the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal at the time.

Since then he’s been seen as a catalyst for water in the Capitol — and he is still sounding the same alarm.

Last year, Perry traversed the state to raise support for what might be the most ambitious overhaul to the state’s funding approach to water in modern state history.

The plan has become one of the worst-kept secrets in Texas politics, as Perry has met with an array of water lobbyists, local leaders and his fellow lawmakers. Those he’s met with have said Perry is working hard to secure the support necessary to make sure his plan does not fail under the dome.

Those conversations have created a buzz in the Texas water world and in Austin, where lawmakers began meeting again this week. However, Perry’s aspirations are, for now, still just an idea. The lawmaker and his team are still drafting the legislation.

According to interviews with water leaders across the state and with the lawmaker himself, the priority is clear — create a dedicated stream of state tax dollars to help local water agencies and cities buy more water and update the infrastructure that carries it to homes, businesses and farms.

Perry plans on asking lawmakers for as much as $5 billion for success in maintaining water infrastructure and growing water supply in the future, amid the state’s population growth.

“The Texas miracle’s happening, and we don’t have enough water to support it,” said Mary Alice Boehm-McKaughan, a lawyer for the Texas Rural Water Association.

The gamut of problems have popped up in all corners of the state, and has Texans worried. About 85% of registered voters are concerned about the risk of future water supply shortages, according to a survey by the policy think tank Texas 2036.

Perry said this session is likely the last chance for the Texas Legislature to get a significant jump start on addressing water issues. He said it’s not practical to leave it up to local governments anymore, because of how expensive it is.

“These are big billion-dollar conversations,” Perry said, in an interview with The Texas Tribune. “If we don’t jump-start this, I think Texas may have seen its best days on some level from some industries.”

Advocates say paying attention to water couldn’t come at a more critical time for Texas. Over the last several years, the state has endured ongoing drought, water contamination, declining water supply from reservoirs and aquifers, and water outages due to aging infrastructure.

It’s too early to say if his approach will work. Perry tried another ambitious bill last session, which allocated $1 billion to create the Texas Water Fund. Advocates say it was just a first step and it falls short of the long-term funding required. Others are waiting to see if Gov. Greg Abbott will make water a priority this session.

“I’m a frustrated CPA (certified public accountant), wannabe engineer,” Perry said. “It’s doable.”

As a Texas House Member in 2013, Perry was against using money in the state’s emergency savings account for water. Doing so would have required the legislature to bust its spending cap. He advocated for financial restraint and to wait.

“This is not a debate on having a water plan,” Perry wrote in 2013. “It’s a discussion on the best way to fund our water needs while protecting the state’s financial stability.”

His opponents used it against him later. However, Perry has long been an advocate for dedicated funds even then. Water, he says, is statewide infrastructure and should be funded the same as roads and bridges.

“Water is life, everything else is quality of life,” Perry said. “We can do without electricity for a day or two. It’s not good, but I can’t do without water for more than about four days. That’s death.”

Perry said part of the plan is to have the recurring funds expire after 10 or 15 years to see what the state’s water supply looks like then.

The idea, he said “will literally provide access to a water supply system — new supply, not existing — actual new supply to every 254 counties in the state.”

Water advocates say it’s not impossible to fix the water issues — leaking pipes, water contamination risks, and declining supply — plaguing the state. However, it will be expensive. A Texas 2036 report estimated that the state needs nearly $154 billion by 2050 for water infrastructure, including $59 billion for water supply projects, $74 billion for leaky pipes and infrastructure maintenance, and $21 billion to fix broken wastewater systems.

“We need to be more aggressive… and consider dedicated funding for water infrastructure, much like we already do for state parks and state road projects,” said Jeremy Mazur, director of infrastructure and natural resources policy at Texas 2036.

Texas voters appear ready for lawmakers to address water concerns. In 2023, voters approved $1 billion to create the Texas Water Fund. And according to Texas 2036’s survey, 85% of voters said they want the state to invest in long-term funding for water supply and infrastructure projects. The group polled over 1,000 registered Texas registered voters from across the state after the election last November for the results.

Perry’s bill would dedicate annual funding to water issues. He could ask for $5 billion per year to be allocated to the Texas Water Fund to help close this substantial funding gap. It’s unclear where that money would come from. The $1 billion approved last session that created the fund was a one-time investment and was used from the state’s historic surplus. Once the money runs dry, so do the water pipe repairs.

“Water supply projects are just becoming more challenging and complex because the easiest and cheapest projects have already been developed,” said Sarah Kirkle, policy director at the Texas Water Association. “We need to act now, or it will become even more expensive in the future.”

If the legislature does move forward in dedicating revenues to the Texas Water Fund, the bill would require a constitutional amendment to the Texas Constitution that voters would have to approve next November. The Texas 2036 poll found 68% of likely voters support dedicating $1 billion annually to the water fund.

Texas loses a significant amount of water from infrastructure breaks and leaks. The primary problem with Texas water infrastructure is its age and deterioration, which leads to significant water loss through leaks and breaks in old pipes.

A 2022 report by Texas Living Waters Project, a coalition of environmental groups, estimated that Texas water systems lose at least 572,000 acre-feet per year — about 51 gallons of water per service connection every day — enough water to meet the total annual municipal needs of the cities of Austin, Fort Worth, El Paso, Laredo, and Lubbock combined.

Cities and local water systems play a vital role and are responsible for the day-to-day management and implementation of water policies. However, many in Texas have struggled to keep up with the costs to fix deteriorating infrastructure, increasing demand, financial constraints and workforce shortages.

Old pipes raise concerns about water quality and supply, and often result in boil water notices paired with the need for costly repairs and replacements across the state. This issue is further compounded by the lack of funding for maintenance in some areas and the increasing demand for water due to population growth.

Boehm-McKaughan with the Texas Rural Water Association said the state’s population boom has sped up the issues.

“We’re very blessed to have folks moving in all the time,” Boehm-McKaughan said. “Nobody’s bringing roads with them. Nobody’s bringing water or more electrical grids.”

The 2022 Texas Water Plan estimates the state’s population will increase to 51.5 million by 2070 — an increase of 73%. At the same time, existing water supplies are projected to decline by 18%. The plan suggests strategies that, if not implemented, could cause a quarter of the state’s population in 2070 to have less than half the municipal water supplies they would need during a drought.

“We’re just having some severe growing pains,” Boehm-McKaughan said. “And, quite frankly, we can’t conserve our way out of it when it comes to water.”

Water experts say securing a reliable, consistent funding stream for water is seen as critical to supporting Texas’ continued economic growth and development, which depends on having dependable water supplies and infrastructure.

“The state level would really be helping those communities in ways that they can’t do on their own,” Kirkle said. “Especially without dramatic increases in local water rates.”

Water organizations are selling the idea as an economic proposal, as they say water is a key component to the economy. Industries and companies often look at the state’s water reliability when making their decisions on where to invest and locate their headquarters.

“If you want to continue to see this economic growth, it’s an economic development, you need to make sure that there’s reliable water infrastructure in place to support that,” Mazur said.

He added that without significant investments in water, Texas could struggle to compete for industry growth.

If a dedicated water fund is created, it could open the door to larger projects that offer regional solutions. In a December essay for the Texas Water Journal, Perry said water desalination — a process that removes minerals from water to make it drinkable — could help produce new water supply across the state.

The Legislature “will have an opportunity to vote for a plan that will supply water to every community, county, and region of the state,” Perry wrote.

There’s also the idea of a state water grid — pipelines transporting water from the water-rich regions of Texas to arid, drought-stricken areas — has been circulating since the 1960s. It first appeared in the 1968 State Water Plan, an era marked by significant interest in interstate water transfers. While the idea persists, the path to implementation is fraught with challenges, according to some water experts.

Building large-scale water transfer systems is no small feat. The costs are astronomical, the timelines daunting and there have been environmental concerns raised in the past.

Robert Mace, executive director of the Meadows Center for Water and the Environment at Texas State University in San Marcos, said projects like these often take 20 to 30 years to complete. However, he’s careful not to dismiss the idea entirely.

“Never say never,” he said.

He added that large-scale water transfers remain a potential lifeline for the state.

“Who knows what’s going to happen and how desperate things could get,” he said. “We have had things like climate change.”

Kirkle with the Texas Water Association said there’s a need for additional water supplies now and addressing Texas’ water challenges will require “every kind of project on the table.”

Perry Fowler, executive director of the Texas Water Infrastructure Network, said Perry seems determined to make a significant change for water. Fowler said the plan for a pipeline network is conceptual, for now.

“I think that the chairman is trying to get a sense of what we’d be looking at in terms of dollars to be able to execute a large scale, large supply investment,” Fowler said.

In an interview with the Tribune, Perry said working on water supply now is critical. He says the state is already behind on its water supply, and it takes a long time to build these projects.

“It takes 20 years to build out the infrastructure to have the water 20 years from now,” Perry said.

Perry has a few more weeks to hammer out the details before he has to present it to lawmakers. All bills must be filed by March 14.

Article originally published by The Texas Tribune. To read the original article, click here.

DALLAS – The Dallas Morning News reports that federal officials accused a North Texas homeowners association of discrimination for trying to kick out residents who receive government assistance to pay rent. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development charged the Providence Village Homeowners Association, a small community in Denton County, with discriminating against Black residents. Court documents obtained by The Dallas Morning News detail the alleged discrimination and harassment that Black residents faced as the homeowners association sought to ban renters who paid with government subsidies, formerly known as Section 8 vouchers. Racist and threatening posts flooded the neighborhood’s unofficial social media pages, according to court documents. One post said, “Hide Your kids cause section 8 is on the loose!!!” In another, a resident called housing voucher recipients “wild animals.”

On two separate occasions, a white supremacist organization protested outside the development, handing out flyers that said voucher recipients were bringing “unimaginable violence.” They also delivered flyers to people’s homes that said, “Blacks bring crime and violence.” Both the homeowners association board and property management company, FirstService, knew of the various threats but did little to address them, court documents say. Representatives for the HOA and FirstService did not respond to emails or phone calls seeking comment Wednesday. Previously, the homeowners association board told The Dallas Morning News the policy aimed to address the “unprecedented uptick in egregious crimes in our community,” for which it blamed voucher recipients. Michael Daniel, a Dallas-based attorney who represents some of the former renters, said the homeowners association forced desperate families to scramble for new housing, upending children’s lives. “The harassment has been horrific,” Daniel said. “Residents feared for their lives.”