Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by dbob on February 23, 2014 at 3:01

The entity he is involved in suing is primarily a municipal water supply:

http://crosstimberswater.com/home/history/

Makes for a nice headline though.

Permalink Reply by Paul M. Hernenko on February 23, 2014 at 3:15

And it has absolutely nothing to do with a fracturing operation? Okay. Thanks for the explanation. I knew there had to be a rationalization involved. LOL!

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on February 23, 2014 at 6:24

From the Crosstimbers Gazette:

Water tower costs up in wake of lawsuit

The general building and specific use permits had already been approved for the ground storage and pumping facilities on the site. The conditional use permit (CUP) for the companion water storage tower had also twice been approved by the town’s Planning & Zoning Commission, but denied both times by the town council; at the November 2010 and February 2011 council meetings.

“The case was filed and we discussed it in executive session with the town attorney at the June [2011] council meeting,” said Town of Bartonville Mayor Ron Robertson in an interview for a Cross Timbers Gazette article in August 2011.

Rather than continuing its attempts to conform to Bartonville’s ordinance codes surrounding its property, BWSC requested a legal determination exempting the public utility from oversight by the Town Council.

In a hearing on May 1, 2012, Denton County 393rd District Court Judge Douglas Robeson ruled with BWSC that the provider is not under the jurisdiction of the town’s ordinances and the CUP was granted.

On June 25, the BWSC board signed a notice to begin construction of the tower under the granted permit.

In July, the town of Bartonville filed a notice of intent to file an appeal of the May ruling with the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth. It was determined that the Fort Worth court’s calendar was overcrowded and, therefore, unable to hear the case in a timely manner. The town filed a motion to extend their intent to file an appeal with the 4th District Court of Appeals in San Antonio with a December 7 submission deadline.

At the time of the original litigation filing, Bartonville’s Town Attorney Robert Hager said that the commissioner’s options were limited. BWSC’s powers of eminent domain limit the town’s authority to oppose the proposed tank. He said that if BWSC can show that the tank is needed and required to maintain the system, then the town can only regulate the aesthetics.

Bartonville residents opposed to the water tower had questioned the need for an elevated storage tank, instead of lower and larger ground tanks such as in Southlake.

http://www.crosstimbersgazette.com/index.php/local-news/2910-water-...

Judge to decide fate of water tower

Bartonville residents opposed to the water tower questioned the need for an elevated storage tank instead of lower and larger ground tanks such as in Southlake, the potential for reduced property values in the area around the tank and the visual impact on the rural atmosphere of Bartonville.

Leading the resident protest from the first public hearing were the Armeys.

Susan Armey said she and her husband built their house to enjoy a pastoral view, not look at a water tower.

Dick Armey repeatedly reflected back on his decision to purchase his property and being told by the BWSC that storage tanks would be no larger than other storage tanks in the area. Armey said he considers the tank an unnecessary eyesore and an aggravation that will reduce property values. He also questioned BWSC’s sense of urgency to meet anticipated connections adding that if the connections are needed for growth in Flower Mound, then the tower should be built there.

and

Bartonville residents speaking against the elevated storage tank included the Armeys, Rex Tillerson, and Bruce Monroe who pointed to BWSC presentations showing only ground storage facilities on the site. Speaking on potential property value loss from an elevated tank were Norma Harrington and Aurora Pucciarello, while Mike Pucciarello and Carter Ghrist said that the tower should be placed where the development and population growth is expected.

http://www.crosstimbersgazette.com/local-news/1749-judge-to-decide-...

Permalink Reply by Paul M. Hernenko on February 23, 2014 at 6:43

Rex Tillerson and Big Dick Armey had a lot to say about that tower. Some folks were there to hear about it first hand.

http://www.texassharon.com/2014/02/22/i-was-there-exxons-rex-tiller...

Permalink Reply by dbob on February 23, 2014 at 10:05

Paul

I understand your point of view - however, since this is not about the shale, production of hydrocarbons, or the business at large, I suggest you consider moving this discussion to the politics group.  

Permalink Reply by Steve P on February 23, 2014 at 10:22

If the 2 stories about the lawsuit seem worlds apart, well, they are.  Is the water tower about fracking, or about a local utility district running rough-shod over local residents?  Hard to tell from the stories presented.  In any event, while I support oil and gas exploration, and believe it can be done in a safe manner, I'm not sure that the operations should be conducted within residential areas.  There should be a balancing of "rights."  I also support nuclear power, but would never suggest that a nuclear power plant should be located in close proximity to residential areas.

I was surprised by the assertion in the story link that fracking has been found to "cause" birth defects.  So, I clicked on the link to that story, also published by RT news.  The study, and I did not read the entire publication, did assert a "correlation" between fracking and particular birth defects.  However, one of the commenters to that story pointed out that the same area as the study was an area know for (a) high radon gas in the soil - a problem common in the Rocky Mountains and (b) this was an area known for the mining of uranium ore for the making of enriched uranium during the Cold War. 

So, it would require more time than I have to see if the actual publication by the NIH group dealt with or acknowledged those factors, or set out to find "facts" to support a goal.  But, clearly, the report found a "correlation" while the RT news story reported is as "causing."  Big difference.  If a study of auto accidents found that more black cars were involved in such accidents, that would be a correlation.  Would a reasonably fair-minded person then make the leap that "black cars cause accidents?"

Finally, while I read a good deal of news stories on the internet, I was unfamiliar with "RT News."   Generally, web articles state pretty prominently information about the organization responsible for the story.  Look at the Rex Tillerson story and try and quickly find such a link.  It's there, in size 4 or 5 font at the very bottom.  I had to read a couple of paragraphs to find this little jewel.

"RT news covers the major issues of our time for viewers wishing to question more and delivers stories often missed by the mainstream media to create news with an edge. RT provides an alternative perspective on major global events, and acquaints international audience with the Russian viewpoint."

I rest my case!  And for the curious out there, I have no relationship with Exxon-Mobil other that incidental amounts of stock held by my retirement and investment mutual funds.  I'm a lawyer, but I work for a university, unrelated to the oil and gas industry.  I do own small amounts of land, mostly inherited, in NW La.  Mostly, I like to see open discussions of pressing issues based on facts.

Permalink Reply by Paul M. Hernenko on February 23, 2014 at 12:22

Yes, it is true that RT is not of the mainstream variety and it does supply the Russian viewpoint. Just as our MSM supplies the corporate and political sponsorship directed viewpoint. I would trust RT as much as Comcast, Time Warner, Disney and/or Mr. Murdoch's operation. How about any other outlet? RT seemed to report on the impending housing crisis and systemic problems surprising most of American viewers of MSM long before they became readily apparent to Fox and CNN watchers and Belo readers.

As to provable damage done by exploration, the proof and pleadings are mostly sealed with the substantial settlements. Suffice it to say, here in the Metroplex, even in neighborhoods where Fox trumps RT, Mr. Tillerson and Mr. Armey's performance won the Golden Globe of Hypocrisy and comedy. People have suffered and are weary of such corporate actors, which is why the Dallas City Council's distaste of the whole process is spreading. RT or not, you do not screw over people and their property and expect reverence in return.

Nit pick and speculate, rationalize it or try to explain it away. The Oil and Gas Industry is not handling the PR as well as the bottom line. I guess they think it does not matter.