Fort Worth Follies

WILLFUL IGNORANCE PUTS FORT WORTH CITIZENS AT RISK

2012-01-28T13:36:00.000-08:00

Opium Poppy

There is a political "process" going on in our city that is the most ominous in Fort Worth's history. Councilman Sal Espino is being pushed by city staff and Hillwood Development (see Ross Perot, Jr.) into allowing toxic chemical injection wells within our city limits.

A great deal of misinformation and sometimes outright lies are being presented by City Staff and Hillwood, during what the city is advertising as "community meetings" to help you understand the issues of chemical injection wells in our city for the natural gas drilling industry. Accompanying this effort by Sal Espino, city staff and Hillwood Development, Hillwood International Energy, Qucksilver and Range Resources....is a city initiated "Spin Machine" in full tilt.....intended to placate Hillwood Development and the spoiled little brats they call company management. It can certainly be said that Hillwood and Ross Perot, Jr. are just attempting to push around the citizens of Fort Worth like they did the small community of Westlake a few years back. And of course threatening Sal Espino and others with political backlash if they don't play along with them is simply the way Hillwood operates.

I attended my first of the "public meetings" on January 26th and can tell you that the public has no opportunity to participate in the process at all. IF you attend one, and you should certainly do that, you will note that the meeting is little more than a "sales effort" intended to convince the public that these toxic injection facilities will somehow benefit you and your children.....or at least benefit Hillwood Development/Hillwood International Energy in north Fort Worth and you by default because these two companies care SO much about you and your family. Most importantly they want you to believe that it will benefit YOU in some way by injecting toxic chemicals into the ground and installing miles and miles of pipelines to carry these toxic chemicals and somehow save your neighborhood streets. Fort Worthians have a saying for this that is time tested........Horse hockey!

As a participant at these "sales meetings" the citizens are not allowed to comment, but instead are encouraged to present "questions and concerns" to be answered at the end of the presentations. The purpose of this process going forward in this way is to answer objections as they come up, and by the end of all the public meetings the "presentation" will be fine tuned to answer all the possible objections the public might come up with.....and they certainly don't want YOUR COMMENTS on video to muddy the waters. The answers the city staff will ultimately present to the public and city council may or may not be true, but because the process is already so biased it simply cannot by definition benefit you or your community.

The first HUGE LIE (and certainly not the only one) that citizens must get past at these "meetings" is that the proposed "injection wells" are just there to dispose of "salt water." After all, most people have taken a splash in the ocean and what could be wrong with that? Well to start with it is a lie and a misstatement of what actually is injected into Mother Earth. In comparison, it is paramount to saying that Opium (and their derivatives Morphine and Heroin) are just pretty flowers so why be concerned....after all we've all seen pretty flowers haven't we?

One of the primary reasons for (they say) allowing chemical injection wells within our city is that they will save our city streets from heavy truck traffic hauling produced water from the gas wells, claiming that 100 gas wells will produce 20,000 truck trips per year. Sounds like a lot doesn't it?

First, when they haul this garbage out of our city they don't use city streets to do that...they use the interstate highways. Second, by the time trucks are needed to haul produced water away there have already been 115,000 truck trips for the same 100 wells on our city streets to prepare the well site and complete the process through the first "fracking" of the public. Where is the concern for our city streets during all that? Why aren't gas producers held responsible for destroying our city streets during this process instead of ONLY being concerned about hauling water away from an already completed well site?

Thankfully we have two community members (League of Women Voters of Tarrant County and the Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods) on this "panel" addressing community concerns and they are doing a wonderful job of bringing out all of the false assumptions with these proposed wells. LISTEN TO THEM...and then contact Sal Espino and the Mayor and tell them you are tired of being dumped on and lied to........

Otherwise....just accept their conclusion that you are in fact....stupid!

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF TARRANT COUNTY....AGAINST TOXIC CHEMICAL INJECTION WELLS

2012-01-27T07:42:00.000-08:00

PREAMBLE / LWV POSITION

Tonight, the sole issue of this forum is whether the City of Fort Worth should permit the disposal of contaminated drilling water within our city limits. The Tarrant County League of Women Voters Board of Directors opposes the granting of that permission.

The League of Women Voters is not opposed to safe drilling that respects the environment. The Tarrant County League of Women Voters is, however, opposed to the destruction of our most valuable and increasingly threatened natural resource water by its injection into disposal wells.

Far too much water used for gas drilling is "lost forever to the water cycle." We encourage the reuse of as much drilling water as possible for further extraction activities. In an area with limited water supplies, no water should be lost unnecessarily.

Many people often express a concern for debts passed on to our children and grandchildren. Do they feel that same concern for causing an increasing deficit of drinkable water, especially as population increases…especially in times of drought such as we now face?

PROBLEM EXPLANATION

The gas drilling industry tells us that the amount of water consumed is necessary to their production process. Once contaminated by drilling chemicals and natural salt, this drilling water must be disposed of.....meaning, buried deep in the earth forever. This requires transport to disposal wells either by trucks that damage our streets and pollute our air, or by pipelines that require rights of way and are potential hazards.

We see this as a seven-part problem.

1. The permanent loss of irreplaceable water because of drilling is immense and ever-increasing.

A figure of five million gallons per well comes from Chesapeake's own web site within the past few months.

Yes – a one-time use! Water used once, and never to be used again.

The current, prevalent, method of disposal for that contaminated water is to inject it deep into the earth deep enough that it can never seep, never be used again for any purpose never again to fall back as rain or to flow through an accessible aquifer. This waste is not debatable. Quote: "The 5 million gallons of water needed to drill and fracture a typical deep shale gas or oil well is equivalent to the amount of water consumed by," for example, "New York City in approximately seven minutes or 7.5 acres of corn in a season." They then add, "While these represent continuing consumption, the water used for a natural gas or oil well is a one-time use."

2. The City of Fort Worth has no detailed, enforceable incentives for drilling-water recycling, and no penalties for its destruction.

For example: Fort Worth city water costs a residential user $4.20 for a hundred cubic feet of water above 30 units (– that's 22,440 gallons). Gas drillers are only charged $4.50 for that same amount of water—water you'll never see again. In spite of the huge consumption, and in spite of their road damage for trucking that water, THEY PAY ONLY SEVEN CENTS MORE ON THE DOLLAR THAN WE DO. (http://fortworthtexas.gov/water/info/default.aspx?id=79858)

3. Residents pay for, with our taxes, unfunded damage to city streets from water trucking, both in and out.

We seem to forget that the water for this process requires delivery INTO the drill site—perhaps as many as 100 truckloads per well. We also forget that some wells may require fracking again after two to three years. (LWVTC Facts & Issues 2007, www.lwvtarrantcounty.org)

You can fix roads—but you cannot replace water.

Disposal wells within the City will only confine water truck street damage to within city limits. Having disposal wells within the city limits can only reduce the distance of that transport, and the degree of reduction has not been defined.

4. To date, we have seen no clear master plan for disposal pipeline regulation.

Even being assured that these pipelines cannot exercise eminent domain, we have concerns involving property rights, citizen health and public safety, and environmental protection. We ask: What Fort Worth City authority will study and permit their placement and perhaps above all be held accountable for their function? What inspection and maintenance is guaranteed?

If the City permits disposal wells, drillers will expect to construct a network of pipelines between their producing and disposal wells right along with our existing maze of underground drinking water pipes, natural gas supply lines, electric and telephone lines, and our city sewage system. While the City's proposed, revised ordinance addresses the construction of pipelines in some detail, it is silent on other factors.

5. We see no definite controls proposed over the environmental hazards of groundwater contamination from disposal wells in a densely populated area, or a means to rectify damage.

The effect of disposed water upon our groundwater remains unresolved, as does the subject of the well's design integrity, safety, inspection and regulation. The effect of drilling upon air quality remains in continual debate, as does the effect of seepage of contaminated water into our aquifers.

6. We see no regulatory positions for protecting land use from pipelines and disposal wells, or for preventing and rectifying environmental damage from spills or line ruptures.

In reading the City's proposed standards for disposal pipelines, we see no protection for land owners who do not want them, or any City or driller accountabilities for subsequent damage.

7. We see no city or state studies or regulation concerning potential earthquake or fault line hazards. We hear only that these concerns must be studied and addressed from state or federal levels.

Fort Worth lies near the Ouachita/Balcones Fault line and intersection of the Trinity Aquifer, as shown on USGS maps. Who has the responsibility of determining that we are not at risk; as, for example, the Oklahoma 5.6 quake of last November 5th, near Oklahoma City? While waiting for state or federal responses, who assesses our risk and liability?

WHAT CAN BE DONE NOW?

Right now, the City of Fort Worth can encourage recycling and other conservation alternatives through its price for drilling water sold, and can apply that income to street maintenance.

Recycling is expensive to the gas drilling industry only because of its tremendous water consumption – and because they currently receive it from the City so cheaply. The City of Fort Worth could easily provide an incentive for recycling by increasing the cost of its water for drilling. This increase might not only reduce the amount of water used and the amount of water trucked but, furthermore, compensate for road damage.

The gas drilling industry contends that the process is too expensive. A frequent figure is that recycling runs about 40-percent more costly than disposal wells. This cost difference is actually only pennies per gallon. Devon, for example, reports recycle costs of $3.35 per barrel and conventional disposal wells as $2.00 to $2.50 per barrel – that's 8-cents per gallon versus 6-cents per gallon TWO cents per gallon more for recycling. (

New technologies for waterless drilling and fracing have been reported but not considered in our area to our knowledge. This example is reported in

CONCLUSION

Basin Oil & Gas [trade journal], July 2008) Drilling Contractor, May/June 2011. Instead of water, Calgary-based GasFrac uses liquefied propane gas (LPG), which is actually a thick gel. The gel purportedly turns to vapor underground…returns to the surface with the gas…and can then be collected and possibly reused. The company also claims that the gel does not carry drilling chemicals back to the surface, a problem with traditional fracking. Houston-based Baker Hughes is using a "foam," called VaporFrac, to reduce water use, purportedly by 95 percent. (Basin Oil & Gas [trade journal], July 2008)

There is no question that we need the energy of this natural gas resource. The cost-benefit of its production may be debatable.

The population of Texas has grown immensely with no signs of lessening. Our growing population must have water for its survival. Water is a finite resource that does not increase with population. More people consume more food, and food production demands more water. Our recent drought—and knowledge that there will always be droughts—warns us that a continued supply of natural water cannot be taken for granted.

Now we have, currently, about 20,000 permitted wells in our immediate area, each consuming three to five million gallons of this precious resource—and we have the promise of more gas wells to come. Each and every one of those wells will generate millions of gallons of contaminated water, unfit for human or animal consumption, unfit for agriculture, unfit even for irrigation of our lawns.

Whether that contaminated water is delivered to a disposal well by trucks that damage our roads or pipelines that consume land and carry their own risks makes little difference. The point is that these billions of gallons of irreplaceable water are destroyed......gone forever.

For example, even though Hillwood Development and Quicksilver Resources get their drilling water from lakes (or ponds) their premises, the gas well drilling consumes that water. Eliminating truck traffic because of their own water source and own disposal source is admirable and profitable but nevertheless destroys water that will never again nourish a living plant or human being. We've heard that site space is a problem for recycling facilities at some locations but certainly not for Hillwood and Quicksilver at Alliance. What better opportunity for an on-site recycling facility than here—right here, where we are.

The total and final loss of billions of gallons of water forever is not debatable or even a question.

That irreplaceable loss is a fact.

The gas drilling industry's enormous consumption of water is one of our primary concerns. The destruction of that water and its eternal loss by injection into disposal wells is a fact.

Fort Worth disposal well 'pilot' won't fly

2011-12-16T12:19:00.000-08:00

By Mike Norman

mnorman@star-telegram.com

I have to cede these points to Fort Worth Councilman Sal Espino: He has been persistent and consistent on the lingering issue of saltwater disposal wells inside the city limits.

He wants to continue the moratorium on new permits for those wells (also called injection wells) that's been in effect for more than five years. And he wants the city to issue a permit for one such well in his district. He says it would be for a "pilot project" in the Alliance industrial area of far north Fort Worth.
I just can't figure out how he can combine the two.

A moratorium on all permits but one -- isn't that the "a little bit pregnant" theory of regulatory controls?
I don't see how you tell one applicant (admittedly a very influential one) "yes" while telling all the rest "no," even if their proposals might be identical in every aspect except location.

You can't get around that just by calling the Alliance plan a "pilot project." That would have to mean Alliance would be testing something that is new and different that hasn't been tested elsewhere in the city. There is nothing unique about the Alliance proposal as it has been presented so far.

Fort Worth already has a pilot project for a disposal well to handle the millions of gallons of waste water and produced water from natural gas wells. It's the Chesapeake Operating Company Brentwood project off East First Street near Oakland Boulevard.

The City Council approved the Brentwood pilot in 2008 to examine the feasibility of a saltwater pipeline network to deliver gas well waste to the disposal well, study methods of recycling produced saltwater and gather other "appropriate data" on disposal options.

The council has been told to expect 14 drilling pad sites to be connected to its well by pipeline by the end of the year.

Evaporation units have been installed to test recycling by sending some of the waste into the air as water vapor.

The Alliance proposal aims for nothing more than that, at least according to a July presentation to the council from Russell Laughlin, senior vice president of Alliance Texas.
In fact, it aims for less. Alliance already has installed a 32-mile pipeline gathering system for saltwater from about 400 wells on 54 pad sites in the 17,000-acre development. About half of those wells have been drilled.

There's no real need to test whether gathering that water in pipelines is better than gathering it by the truckload -- that's a no-brainer.

And recycling? Well, not so much right now. Maybe later, said Laughlin, "when recycling comes to a point such that we can begin the recycling model of it."

Rick Trice, city assistant director of planning and development, told the council that the Brentwood pilot project has shown it is feasible to recycle only "a very low percentage" of saltwater produced from gas wells, although more tests will be done.

There are good arguments for lifting the moratorium on injection wells in Fort Worth, especially those served by pipelines rather than road-damaging trucks. There are also good arguments against them.
But as it has been described so far, the Alliance proposal appears to be nothing more than a one-time exception to the moratorium on disposal wells. It's hard to see the justification.
Espino and Alliance will have a chance to make their case in January and February, when the city will hold a series of public meetings to gather information and opinions about disposal wells for a council decision in March.

The moratorium is set to expire April 30.

Mike Norman is editorial director of the Star-Telegram / Arlington and Northeast Tarrant County. 817-390-7830

Fort Worth City Council Arrogance is Boundless

2011-12-14T08:39:00.000-08:00

The Fort Worth City Council passed a “non-binding” (although they didn’t make the non-binding part clear to the public) resolution on November 15, 2011, with Council Members Sal Espino and Kathleen Hicks voting against the measure as being unrepresentative of the citizens of our city.

Essentially the resolution states that the Mayor and City Council did not agree with our right to make the decision with regard to possible changes in the city charter (our city constitution) that will affect the number of city council districts. Preferring instead to make a feeble attempt at forcing their own opinions and personal wishes on the citizens of Fort Worth with a “resolution,” rather than allowing us to make that decision as authorized in the Texas Constitution and state law.

The Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 9, Section 9.1004 clearly states that the power to change our City Charter (our city constitution like the Texas Constitution) rests only with the voters of this city. The "rules" by which our city council operates (or does not operate) resides in that City Charter and cannot be altered or modified in any way by elected officials. It's clear that when you consider this latest Fort Worth "resolution" to do nothing, it is very obvious that our founding fathers understood the reasons for NOT allowing elected officials the power to alter our Texas Constitution or the City Charter.

Fort Worth Citizens for Responsible Government has joined the cooperative effort, (Coalition for a Better Fort Worth) that includes concerned citizens, neighborhood leaders, neighborhood associations and public officials. We are moving forward with a petition drive to put city council charter amendments (propositions) on the ballot for an 11 member council and a second petition for term limits. The petition effort as being proposed by ordinary citizens wishing to exercise our right to vote on issues that the city council has no authority to modify or amend.

After talking with many neighborhood leaders that we have known and worked with for years, and conducting my own surveys, I believe that enough support exists (in excess of 75% in favor) to get the petitions completed and get at least these two propositions on the ballot for consideration in May 2012. For the short term we will be using Fort Worth Citizens for Responsible Government PAC in order to collect donations and expend funds in this collaborative effort.

At no time during the petition drive are we going to engage in debate about whether staying with 8 and 1 is effective or if there is a need for 11 council members. That debate can and will happen once these issues are on the ballot. We learned with the successful Tarrant County "Over 65 Tax Freeze" petition drive that discussing the issue BEFORE it is actually on the ballot is at best a waste of time, and at worst just plain stupid. The discussion has no value to anyone outside of general conversation.

If you believe as I we do and want to volunteer in your neighborhood to help us complete these petitions, please feel free to contact me by email at texasambulance@aol.com

Louis McBee

Fort Worth Citizens for Responsible Government
responsible@youcandecide.org

Former Mayor admits to Illegal Meetings

2011-11-18T10:12:00.000-08:00

Former mayor
Bob Bolen

As I sat and listened to other speakers at City Council on November 15th, I was not at all surprised at the overwhelming support for adding two (2) new members to the Fort Worth City Council, effectively making our city a 10 council district city IF the citizens were allowed to vote on this important issue. However, in the case of every mayor from Bob Bolen forward, the office of mayor has been primarily serving the needs, wants and wishes of the downtown business interests. Now of course you can add to that, supporting the interests of Chesapeake and any other gas drilling company coming before the council.

While former mayor Bob Bolen's comments about keeping the city council "as is" was not surprising, what hit me like a right cross from Mike Tyson was Mr. Bolen's admission and suggestion that if the city council were any larger it would be difficult for the mayor to reach out to individual council members with what is referred to by the Texas Attorney General's office as "walking quorums." For those who are unfamiliar with the Texas Open Meetings Act, a walking quorum takes place when a mayor or council member meets with other council members in less than a quorum in order to circumvent the Open Meetings Act requirements that city business be discussed in open meetings. To meet individually with less than a quorum in order to line up votes ahead of a council meeting....IS a "Walking Quorum."

Former mayor Bolen specifically stated in testimony that in order for the mayor to do the job in Fort Worth they must "deal with council members one at a time" on issues of importance to the city.

By any definition you choose that is a "Walking Quorum" and it is illegal as hell. Ever wonder why, when attending a council meeting, it just "seems" like the decision has been made and the votes have been lined up....before the city council meeting even began? Well according to Bob Bolen, that is because it has!

APPARENTLY MAYOR PRICE IS JUST KIDDING

2011-11-17T07:50:00.000-08:00

I was happy to present an overhead slide of this picture and statement by Mayor Price during the discussion [not an accurate description of what happened] on whether or not we should allow the citizens of Fort Worth to VOTE on the issue of increasing the City Council or keeping it at it is now. Instead what we listened to was a litany of excuses about why members of the council thought we should stay at 8 council districts instead of the citizen mandated 10 plus the mayor.

I would just request that you at least listen to the fact that in order to change the city council, [any Home Rule city council] in any way shape or form....it requires that the City Charter be amended by the citizens of Fort Worth, and ONLY by the citizens of Fort Worth. That statute can be found in the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 9, Section 9.004 "Charter Amendments" http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/LG/htm/LG.9.htm#9.004

I'm not real sure how Mayor Price can make the statement you read at the left and still say that she was in favor of a non-binding resolution that effectively took the decision making responsibility of altering the city council away from the citizens of this once great city. How is it possible to tell our neighborhoods that "it's your Fort Worth," and then tell them that their vote and opinion will not count in her view? How do you, as an elected official, of this city tell the people you are supposed to represent that you want them to "make our great city even better by taking ownership," and then attempt to deny them that ownership...because you think you are smarter than the citizens of Fort Worth?

There will be a petition drive to get the issue of the number of council districts, and most probably term limits as well on the ballot for May of 2012, which is the earliest date possible. If you want to get involved or to donate funds to help with the petition effort please feel free to contact me, Louis McBee (texasambulance@aol.com) or Fernando Flores (rfflorez@juno.com), and we will be glad to tell you how you can help. There will be other contacts as we move forward with the petition, but please don't hesitate to put your name in the hat now!

Fort Worth Citizens for Responsible Government

www.fwcrg.org

Coalition for a Better Fort Worth

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!

2011-11-13T13:02:00.000-08:00

November 19, 2011

Public Email to Council Members:

Dear Fort Worth Council Members,

I am writing you in obvious opposition to any "resolution" that effectively states that you do not support the will of the majority in Fort Worth on the issue of increasing the number of single member districts. There is obviously overwhelming support for increasing the number of council districts and especially for a 10 and 1 city council (69%), based on the citywide survey contracted by you, constructed of questions you wanted answers to.....with many of the questions presented to the public in a way YOU wanted.....so that the responses would elicit the outcome that YOU perceived as favorable. Now you want to change the outcome of the survey and suggest that because citizens "think" the city is running ok, they also think that they are fairly represented in the number of council representatives. Such a conclusion is a serious mistake on your part, and one that can be proven with facts.

This survey and my own in east Fort Worth indicates that the citizens have spoken and given the city council a "mandate" to put the issue of a 10 and 1 city council on the ballot. It would appear that you are suggesting that the survey is wrong and that the citizens of Fort Worth don't "really" want a larger city council. The ONLY other option is of course that you don't really care what the citizens of Fort Worth want or need. Any rhetoric about saving money will fall on deaf ears for the most part, as citizens have begun to understand that you don't have a problem spending funds whenever and whereever you think is appropriate.

It is also misleading to the public to state that only 69% of the respondents to your survey favor a change to a 10 and 1 city council, as the support is actually greater than that. Not only were the questions on districts asked respondents incomplete, they were also in the middle of a very long survey. The following survey results listed by district should convince all of you of the seriousness of your actions. If it doesn't convince you......have the courage to seek an accurate survey with direct questions and also include a question on term limits. You will find support for that as well as a larger council.

District 2 - Sal Espino - 70% Support for 10 and 1
District 3 - Zim Zimmerman - 75% Support for 10 and 1
District 4 - Danny Scarth - 45% Support for 10 and 1 - (and an obvious error in the process)
District 5 - Frank Moss - 74% Support for 10 and 1
District 6 - Jungus Jordan - 72% Support for 10 and 1
District 7 - Dennis Shingleton - 69% Support for 10 and 1
District 8 - Kathleen Hicks - Are you ready? Wait for it! - 77% Support for 10 and 1
District 9 - Joel Burns - 76% Support for 10 and 1 - WOW!

Please keep in mind that the Fort Worth city council has no control over what the citizens may or may not change on the City Charter, and I am certainly not suggesting that you change anything because you cannot. Any "resolution" you pass will be non-binding on the citizens and will signal a desire by the City Council to ignore your constituent's wishes. By LAW the rules by which this city operates, the Texas Local Government Code and the Fort Worth City Charter may only be modified by the citizens of this great city (thank God!), and all they are expecting from you is to fairly represent their wishes and put the issue on the ballot for May of 2012. IF...as some of you have claimed in public statements, the citizens think this city runs just fine the way it is, they will say "no thank you" to amending the city charter to reflect a 10 and 1 council. It is as simple as that!

You can of course refuse the citizen's mandate and pass your little "resolution," in which case we will not allow the mistakes of 2003 to happen again. If you require that we take the matter into our own hands, we will not stop at amending the City Charter on the number of council districts. There is also 75%+ support for term limits on the city council and we will include that as well.

Respectfully submitted.

Louis McBee

It is impossible for a politician to understand any issue if

their income and/or political contributions are dependant

on their NOT understanding the issue.

Dilbert is a Dip Wad....So is Danny

2011-10-31T13:18:00.000-07:00

Perhaps we can convince Betsy Price to take a big ol swig of this "salt water." After all.....Danny Scarth says it's no worse than getting some sea water in your mouth and swallowing!

BETSY - GIRLFRIEND....WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?

2011-10-26T09:06:00.000-07:00

Here is just one of the videos wherein Betsy Price stated that the city needed to work with citizens and neighborhoods to make sure that gas drilling in our city was done right and safely. On Tuesday the entire City Council abdicated their responsibility to the citizens of this city by not allowing citizens to have "REAL" input into changing the gas drilling ordinance, or correcting mistakes of the past......preferring instead to support this industrial...dangerous activity in neighborhoods and close to schools, day care centers and generally anywhere people live work, and play.

As a matter of pure fact, every single returning council member (and Betsy) promised in May (before the election of course) that they would support a more comprehensive gas drilling ordinance, and allow citizens to take a leadership role in writing an ordinance that more completely protects citizens, our water and our air. Allowing for greater set-backs and more responsible drilling rules. Well....obviously that did not happen yesterday 10/25/2011, so perhaps you should read the article just below this one and ask yourself the same question. "Do you really want to leave something this important up to a City Council that has so completely demonstrated that they care not what you think or what is important to you and your family's health and safety?" OH...and I hope that you now understand that a council member (to include the mayor) "saying" a thing and actually "doing" something about it is a vast sea of toxic chemicals, polluted water and dirty air!

Why would you even start to believe anything this council has to say about drilling any longer when this latest ordeal was so obviously a scam from the very beginning. Betsy Price promised the citizens that we would take a serious look at the ordinance and that the neighborhoods would be involved in that process. So...what happened Betsy?

City Staff (in concert with Betsy, Zim Zimmerman and Danny Scarth) was allowed to present a rewrite of the Gas Drilling Ordinance without any input from neighborhoods or citizens that are currently being negatively impacted by this heavy industrial activity....with almost no limits on what they can do or where. AND what did the city staff do? They presented an unsolicited ordinance rewrite that THEY KNEW would not be acceptable to the gas drilling industry nor to the people of this city. The ONLY city council member to rightfully suggest that the ordinance rewrite be postponed and to involve more citizens was Kathleen Hicks! Good Lord God people...when will you wake up and catch the dummy?

ANY TAKERS NOW FOR A PETITION DRIVE?

WHY LEAVE IT UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO DO THE RIGHT THING?

2011-10-20T08:15:00.000-07:00

Even if you did not know before now that our (Fort Worth or any Home Rule municipality) city charter and any amendments to it are governed by state law and not by our city ordinances and/or city procedures. Below is a true and accurate reprint from the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 9 "Home Rule Municipality."

Of particular note here is that a petition to amend our city charter only requires five percent (5%) of the registered voters in the city (less the hold list) in order to require that the city put an issue on the ballot for the citizens to vote on. SO...my question is this. Why are you waiting for the city council to do the right thing and put the issue of the number of single member council districts on the ballot for May of 2012?

While a petition may only contain one issue for amendment, just about anything may be put on the ballot for inclusion in our city charter....such as "retroactive term limits for city council members, mandatory set-backs for oil and gas production and no chemical disposal wells in the city limits.

The citizens of Fort Worth don't typically sit on their duffs and wait for others to do the right thing, so, the only question remaining now would be....."Where is the courage that the citizens of this city are so famous for?"

§ 9.004. CHARTER AMENDMENTS.

(a) The governing body of a municipality on its own motion may submit a proposed charter amendment to the municipality's qualified voters for their approval at an election. The governing body shall submit a proposed charter amendment to the voters for their approval at an election if the submission is supported by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters of the municipality equal to at least five percent of the number of qualified voters of the municipality or 20,000,whichever number is the smaller.

(b) The ordinance ordering the election shall provide for the election to be held on the first authorized uniform election

date prescribed by the Election Code or on the earlier of the date of the next municipal general election or presidential generalelection. The election date must allow sufficient time to complywith other requirements of law and must occur on or after the 30th day after the date the ordinance is adopted.

CONTINUE TO RISE UP IN PROTEST UNTIL LAMBS BECOME LIONS!

IT IS THE AMERICAN WAY!

Fort Worth Proposes Lifting Ban On Gas Drilling Disposal Wells

2011-10-19T08:41:00.000-07:00

Shelley Kofler, KERA News (2011-10-18

DALLAS, TX (KERA) - Fort Worth is considering a change in its gas drilling ordinance that would allow wastewater disposal wells within the City limits. KERA's Shelley Kofler says the issue is expected to draw heated debate during a public hearing tonight.

Millions of gallons for water are used for the hydraulic fracturing of a gas well, and the gas production that follows. Much of that water becomes contaminated with drilling chemicals and salt and is typically disposed of in deep underground wells.

Some five years ago Fort Worth banned drilling companies from locating the wastewater disposal wells within City limits. But the City is now proposing that moratorium be lifted.

City spokesman Jason Lamers says the wells would solve problems that come from transporting the toxic water.

Lamers: Truck traffic has been a continual issue from the very beginning with gas drilling. That truck traffic has a lot to do with shipping salt water outside of the City limits.

Lamers says the City would limit the wastewater wells to industrial areas, but a number of community groups say that's not enough to make the wells safe.

Gary Hogan of the North Central Texas Communities Alliance worries about ground water pollution and the safety of pipelines that would carry the wastewater to the wells.

Hogan: You know we have water main breaks all over Texas because our ground shifts so much. If we ever had one of these production water pipelines break like we have a water line break this toxic brew could go anywhere and it would literally sterilize the earth.

Hogan's group and the Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods want the City to keep the moratorium on wastewater disposal wells in place while it looks at technology that could clean up and reuse the water.

The public has a chance to be heard on changes to the drilling ordinance at a City council meeting beginning at 7:00 pm Tuesday tonight. The Fort Worth Council is scheduled to adopt the changes next week.

League of Neighborhoods Against Chemical Injection Wells

2011-10-15T08:24:00.000-07:00

By Libby Willis

Special to the Star-Telegram

After a 10-year moratorium, the Fort Worth City Council appears poised to approve locating underground wastewater disposal wells inside the city in areas zoned I, J and K.

They could be 1,000 feet from a protected use [note: could] -- such as your home -- but would require council approval if they were closer than 1,000 feet. Also called "saltwater" wells, these are dump sites for the cocktail of water, sand and fluid used in natural gas hydraulic fracturing operations. There is evidence that some of the "frack" fluids in this wastewater are toxic.

The question is "What has changed that would prompt the city to consider allowing the placement of such wells?" Ironically, there appear to be more concerns now about the wastewater produced in the fracking process and the disposal wells than there were even five years ago.

In early August, the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission banned fracking disposal wells in central Arkansas, near the communities of Greenbrier and Guy and for a 1,150-square-mile radius because of earthquakes. A state geologist reported evidence that certain earthquakes occurred when massive amounts of waste were put in disposal wells in the affected area.

Last year, a study of seismic activity near Dallas/Fort Worth Airport by Southern Methodist University and University of Texas at Austin researchers showed that wastewater disposal wells were a "plausible cause" for the series of small earthquakes that occurred in the area between October 2008 and May 2009. A state tectonic map showed a northeast-trending fault intersects the Dallas-Tarrant county line approximately at the place where the DFW quakes occurred. A wastewater disposal well was placed on or near that fault.

When the injections stopped, the quakes stopped.

Earthquakes caused by wells sited over or close to fault lines, potential for leaks and spills of the chemically laced frack water, potential for contamination of well water or ground water, resident radiation in the frack water, corrosion of the pipelines that could be carrying the water from the well site to a disposal well -- the list goes on and on for why it's hard to love the idea of wastewater disposal wells inside any metropolitan area.

Are either disposal wells or the trucking of contaminated water out of the city the only two options available? Not according to cutting-edge industry that is promoting mobile evaporative units to treat the frack water in Pennsylvania. The units are able to return some of that water to be recycled.

We are living in a historic drought when some cities in our area have begun to ban fracking during the summer months as well as banning the use of city water for fracking. Water conservation is an ongoing concern. Can we afford to put millions of gallons of contaminated water underground and just leave it there, lost forever?

The Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods has commented on all the proposed revisions to the city's Gas Drilling Ordinance (http://www.fwlna.org/).

We recommend that the city continue its moratorium on wastewater disposal wells and encourage the use of new technology to deal with the issue. We would like for Fort Worth to be able to say that it supports the production of "cleaner-burning" natural gas in a manner consistent with our obligation to be effective stewards of local natural resources and to have firm oversight of those business activities which may adversely affect the health, safety and economic welfare of our citizens.

Libby Willis is president of the Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods.

HOW TO SCAM THE PUBLIC INTO ACCEPTING A TOXIC WASTE DUMP

2011-10-04T20:15:00.000-07:00

The Fort Worth City Council is on the cusp of allowing toxic chemical injection wells to be drilled all over our city, under the misguided idea that it will somehow save our streets from truck traffic. (the very same streets that they cannot seem to get repaired anyway), (See Star Telegram article http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/10/03/3416870/fort-worth-remains-way-behind.html#my-headlines-default). Hopefully the public will see through the scam and realize that they still have to use our streets to get to the disposal wells no matter where they are located, saving nothing and moving further toward making Fort Worth an industrialized city.

How did we get to this point? Well, right after Danny Scarth was elected the first time around, and with gas driller's money, Four 7’s/Chesapeake wanted to drill a toxic chemical injection well (more commonly and incorrectly called a salt water injection well) in east Fort Worth at the intersection of East First Street and Randol Mill Road. They applied for a permit to drill such a well with the Texas Railroad Commission (TxRRC) in Austin, which instigated a series of actions from the Commission, not the least of which was a notice to the City of Fort Worth that the city had the right and opportunity to object to, and protest, the drilling of the toxic waste disposal well before it was drilled.

As you can most probably guess, the city’s legal office notified all of the “appropriate” people, to include Danny Scarth, of this “opportunity” to keep the disposal well out of our city. (Wait for it.....you knew the answer already didn’t you?) Instead of doing the right thing to keep this toxic waste dump out of our city, people in control chose to ignore the right to protest the disposal well and Chesapeake was allowed to drill very quietly and covertly. What was told to the gullible public was that Chesapeake/Four 7’s was able to get the well drilled just shortly before we instituted a moratorium on disposal wells in the city, and we were therefore unable to stop the well from being drilled. The story from Danny Scarth to the Greater Meadowbrook News, was that the disposal well was permitted before he was elected as District 4 council (sic) representative. Both stories were, of course….less than the truth!

In any case, even after the disposal well was drilled and completed, Chesapeake still had a serious problem to deal with. Even though our city had not protested the well, and they were allowed to drill, our current gas drilling ordinance in effect at the time clearly stated that a producer, nor anyone, could dispose of any material in an injection well, except what was produced from gas wells on the SAME lease as the disposal well. The serious problem for Chesapeake? There were no gas wells on the same lease as their one (1) disposal well. The city’s environmental office, run by Bryan Boerner at the time (who is now a Chesapeake employee), specifically told Chesapeake in writing they could not use the well to dispose of flow back water and chemicals from other wells in east Fort Worth without being in violation of our Gas Drilling Ordinance.

In typical Fort Worth fashion (known today as “the Fort Worth Way,” Danny Scarth and then Mayor Moncrief began a campaign with city staff support, to remove that little handicap from our gas drilling ordinance when it was re-written this last time. The day after the new gas drilling ordinance was adopted by the City Council, Chesapeake began trucking in toxic waste to the one disposal well in Fort Worth.

This has also gotten us to the point of complete approval of disposal wells all over our city, which has been the ultimate goal of Chesapeake and those in city government who support gas drilling at the cost of anyone or anything in our city. If the citizens of Fort Worth allow this, say goodbye to our great city and to Cowtown as we know it. NO JOKE!

FORT WORTH ROAD FOLLIES

2011-10-04T13:49:00.000-07:00

"The bottom line is not how we got here, it's how we go forward," Price said. "If nothing else, it's a start in the right direction. We have a much stronger will on the council to make this happen."

SORRY MAYOR, but that is exactly the "bottom line!" As the old saying goes (to paraphrase), those who will not learn from the past are doomed to relive it. That is apparently ALL we do in Fort Worth. We constantly rehash old problems because we have a city council (mostly staff) that cannot seem to get their heads on straight. All too often their "start in the right direction" is just that....a start with no ending in sight.

The city council of the past has said how important public transportation is to the economic growth of our city, and now don't seem to understand that our city streets and major arterial streets ARE "public transportation" first and foremost. Year after year (actually election after election) the people of Fort Worth proclaim that our streets are the most important issue in their lives...and yet we still have a city council that has not only ignored the problem, they blatantly allowed money that YOU authorized to sit there unused. Is it any wonder that people think our city staff and many on the council are like silly geese that seem to wake up to a new world everyday?

A very quick look at what Danny (I'll fix your roads) Scarth promised the people of Fort Worth in 2006....repeat 2006! Which is so obviously more than 2 elections! (http://www.youtube.com/user/dannyscarth?blend=7&ob=5). Although Danny isn't by himself in these promises, he is most accountable because of this very public video....that everyone should be required to memorize.

I would only ask that people who read this remember that while this money "sat in the bank" unused, the city council voted to increase our WATER BILLS for storm water improvements and at least 3 increases in our garbage collection costs. We no longer have a water bill, it is now a separate tax bill!

Current drought could become worst ever, state climatologist says

2011-09-30T04:50:00.000-07:00

Current drought could become worst ever, state climatologist says

Where is the Fort Worth City Council?

2011-09-29T12:16:00.000-07:00

www.fwweekly.com

The only investigative news source left in Fort Worth is the Fort Worth Weekly. Oh sure, occasionally the Startlegram will pick up on a story and run with it, but usually only after someone like the Fort Worth Weekly leads them to the watering trough and shows them exactly where to drink the "responsibility" water. And again they have published the "Best of" categories for 2011, allowing for "readers choice" and "Critics Choice" in each category. I don't mind telling you that I personally find this yearly issue much more informative than listening to the constant diatribe from our daily news sources whenever elections come around.

I could not help but notice that in the categories that usually signal useful involvement in a positive way to protect communities and neighborhoods, such as the best example of "Gumption and Grit," and "Watchdog" group, the Fort Worth City Council nor city staff EVER is in the running for a win in these categories....not to my knowledge anyway. Time and again elected officials are chosen instead for solid wins in areas such as "Most Likely to Sell Grandma to the Highest Bidder" and "Candidate for Alien Abduction." Wins that are without question...deserved!

One shining example of community service AND gumption and grit (in my opinion) was the group chosen for the "Watchdog" organization for 2011. Here is what the Fort Worth Weekly had to say about this wonderful group of dedicated citizens:

Critic’s choice: North Central Texas Communities Alliance

We can’t pick just one of the activists involved in this invaluable group to confer the Top Watchdog title on, so we’re giving it to the whole crew. As does any individual or organization that takes on the 800-pound gorilla of the drilling industry, the NCTCA folks must surely feel sometimes as though they are simply crying into the wind. They go to city council meetings, protest and testify in Austin, do all the myriad other things to try to keep North Texans informed (and, let’s face it, enraged) about the many truly scary aspects of urban gas drilling in these parts — and for what? But the underdogs win one once in a while, and along the way, they are laying the basis for responsible, informed, dogged opposition to an industry that is threatening lives, health, and, frankly, the long-term future of this city. These days, what form of public service could be more valuable?

Congrats also to Layla Caraway for her win as the critics choice for "Free Spirit." Her tireless work on our behalf with the Trinity River Improvement Partnership will serve not only the citizens of Fort Worth well, but also Haltom City, Richland Hills and North Richland Hills.

Finally, please join with me to encourage our elected officials into putting the effort forward that will enable them to win these yearly categories that truly represent our communities and citizens.

Toxic Chemicals for Fort Worth this Christmas

2011-09-26T19:38:00.000-07:00

This cartoon isn't as silly as it might first appear, especially when you consider that the city of Fort Worth has a pilot program that will essentially evaporate toxic waste salt water into the air we breathe in east Fort Worth. As you contemplate this, consider that many of the toxic chemicals that are present in flow back water from hydraulic fracturing of a gas well evaporate at a much lower temperature than the salt water that contains the chemicals.

The argument can certainly be made that IF we are going to subject our lungs to this toxic chemical soup we might as well just drink it! During this horrible drought...if Fort Worth and the Tarrant Regional Water District continue to allow gas drillers to use 3 to 5 MILLION GALLONS of our clean water to fracture each and every gas well....we may very well have to drink flow back water.

What's next? The foolish city council is on the brink of allowing toxic chemical injection wells all over the city. That's right, the very same wells that have caused earthquakes in shale drilling states all over this country. How did we get here? That will be the subject of the next post, and it is a story of fraud, greed and cronyism....OH, and let's not forget a healthy helping of ignorance on behalf of the Fort Worth City Council.

Charge Him By the Word

2011-09-26T18:19:00.000-07:00

Anyone notice the similarity
between Danny and W.C. Fields?
How about the red nose?

The following is a reprint from the Fort Worth Weekly newspaper on September 21st.

Fort Worth City Council member Danny Scarth was downright chatty during this week’s council meeting, proudly describing the 11 months of deliberation that went into establishing Fort Worth’s $1.4 billion budget for fiscal 2012. The budget is balanced, requires no increase in the property tax rate, and includes a 3 percent raise for general employees, who have done without for the past couple of years.

Before voting on the budget, Scarth delivered a long speech with glowing phrases such as “judicious and prudent” and “consistent and stable” to describe the number-crunching the city has done “to use our dollars more wisely.”

But afterward, Scarth wasn’t so eloquent — and not nearly as long-winded — when Weekly muckraker Jeff Prince asked him about the $2,632 in overdue property taxes that the elected official owes. The sum represents about $2,017 in unpaid taxes from 2010, plus $614 in late charges.

The conversation went like this:

Prince: Why do you owe unpaid taxes?

Scarth: Just do.

Prince: Do you plan on paying them?

Scarth: Yes.

Prince: Do you have a plan in mind?

Scarth: Sure do. Thank you.

Scarth then rolled away in his wheelchair before Prince could ask his last question: Should an elected city official be behind on his taxes?

So the reporter instead posed the question to Peter Fletcher, an Eastside resident who lives in Scarth’s district. Fletcher thinks it’s “a shame” that someone who’s helping balance the city budget can’t or won’t pay taxes (this isn’t the first time Scarth has let his tax bill go overdue).

“He seems to have done this sort of thing a good deal over the years,” Fletcher said. “This raises the question, how he can be expected to be involved in ‘leading the city’ in regard to the city budget and other fiscal matters? In just three months he has added 30.47 percent to the amount he owes. No wonder little gets done for District 4 if he can’t get his taxes paid.”