WILLFUL IGNORANCE PUTS FORT WORTH CITIZENS AT RISK

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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.