Response on BDA matters
Sep 04, 2013 | 124 views | 0 0 comments | 2 2 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Response on BDA matters


One hasn’t enough time or allotted space to deal adequately with the current spate of BDA propaganda in letters to the editor from Arnold Medina, Laura Fischer and Carlos Perez, but one must try.

Mr. Medina, while it is true that in early 2013 the THEN City Council favored reverse osmosis (probably because it was and still is the best option when one considers quantity of reliable available water and  cost), that was before the May 2013 (a.) lost bond election, (b.) election of Trace Morrill (then legal counsel to BDA), and (c.) the “palace coup” dethroning Mayor Martinez in favor of Mayor Carabajal, all of which I believe were supported by friends of BDA. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly lobbyists with something to offer (in this case presumptively political support) are able to alter politicians’ views. Council now clearly favors the BDA proposal SO MUCH that it has joined BDA in urging modification of water production limits, for BDA property only, to increase BDA’s allowable from about 1.3 million gallons a day to about 3 million gallons a day. Not very neighbor friendly and could put at risk availability of water under neighbors’ property, including the state jails’ property. Mr. Medina writes: “The BDA is not making any money selling water … at 31 cents per 1,000 gallons.” With no expenses, at $.31 per 1,000 gallons, 3 million gallons a day nets over $ 339,450 PER YEAR – not chump change and half again as much as BDA would make under its first proposal. As an aside, I have heard that the BDA’s current budget is something over $250,000 per year. Coincidence?

The Citizens Water Committee met about twice a week for about two months, with John Galloway as its chair clearly favoring BDA’s proposal to sell 1 million gallons a day at $.62 per gallon. (In my judgment, the fact that Mr. Galloway is on the executive board of the BDA, which I only recently learned, should have disqualified him from serving on the committee.) At the last meeting, after the thoughtful recommendation of the Water Committee’s Subcommittee (formed for the express purpose of comparing existing alternatives) had been furnished to the committee, BDA was placed on the agenda by Mr. Galloway and presented its current, significantly altered, proposal.

Ms. Fischer’s reference to oil field prices for frack water strikes me as totally misleading. While it is true that the city (and perhaps others) has contracted to sell water (as to the city, treated affluent from the wastewater treatment plant), I am unaware of any purchases under such contract(s). Transportation costs from south Bee County to the frack well sites are too great to compete against better located available water. If my information is correct, BDA cannot solve its “lack of funds” problem by selling water to well drillers.

Though there is much more to say about this subject, the Bee-Pic’s word limit can not be exceeded. Sorry Mr. Perez.  Stay tuned.

Tom Healey
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet