Sep 13, 2013 | 68 views | 0 0 comments | 2 2 recommendations | email to a friend | print

Gee whiz – Mr. (Arnold) Medina caught me in a biggie: “$339,450” instead of “more than $339,450” is correct. (My first draft of the offending letter said “more than $339,000.” When changing it to the more precise amount, I failed to delete the “more than.” I can handle 5th-grade math.

His prior point: “The BDA is not making any money selling water... at 31 cents per gallon.” (emphasis supplied) was literally off by $339,450. My substantive point – that $339,450 per year “ not chump change.” remains unchallenged by Mr. Medina and would indeed cover BDA’s current budget and then some.

“Adequacy of water risk” is a quality and an availability issue. Over-production could draw brackish Angeline water from under Beeville to Chase, requiring a reverse osmosis plant to filter BDA (and state jail’s) water. Regularly pumping 3 million gallons per day by BDA, together with jail and irrigation pumping, could produce excessive lowering of the Angeline water level and interrupt production. I would support Mr. Medina’s call for professional assessment before any contract with BDA, which should be done at BDA’s expense. (As an aside, I am told that city funds are paying for some costs of professionals to assist BDA in its quest for a water contract. If this is so, I believe it is an illegal use of taxpayers’ funds.)

As to the rest of Mr. Medina’s letter (Sept. 11 edition), President Reagan’s “There you go again” comment to President Carter seems the most appropriate response.

“Palace coup” or agreed rotation? Then Councilman Carabajal, shortly before the mayoral election meeting, orally assured Mayor Martinez that Mr. Carabajal supported his re-election as mayor. Inasmuch as Councilman Fulghum seems to follow Mr. Carabajal’s lead without fail, Mayor Martinez went into that election meeting fully expecting to be re-elected. He did not “step down on his own” as Mr. Medina suggests.

Mr. Medina makes the following additional points: BDA water is “to be used only on an emergency basis,” “BDA is a self-sustaining entity” and BDA must “generate revenue” to continue to exist. If these points are accurate, a water contract would be of no material benefit to BDA, and it would cease to exist absent revenue from some other source. The only other material source BDA has located in the past is taxpayers’ money handed out by the BEIC.  

Tom Healey
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet