Posted on 09/21/2006 2:31:13 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Pat Hensen spent a good part of his 35-year career with the Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resource Conservation Service) helping Texas Blacklands farmers improve their land.
And he’s invested considerable time, effort and money the last 20 years doing the same on his own or leased acreage.
And it may all end up under yards of concrete and asphalt if the Trans Texas Corridor passes muster and follows the latest proposed route.
“My farm would be in the middle of it,” Hensen says from his Bell County living room where he and wife Loretta participate in a grassroots campaign to stop what they believe is no more than a land grab and an unconscionable destruction of some of the best farm land in the Southwest.
“Regardless of where it goes, it will take out about 150 acres per mile through the heart of the Blacklands,” Hensen says.
Ultimately, the corridor would link with the NAFTA highway and stretch from Canada into the heart of Mexico and take a chunk of farmland out of the Midwest. When completed, the Trans Texas Corridor would include more than 4,000 miles of intersecting highways across the state.
“They plan to take the best land we have to build a road and once it’s paved it’s gone forever,” Hensen says. “The corridor will take acreage equal to one county out of Texas.”
He says a lot of Texans are not aware of the corridor and certainly not cognizant of the lost acreage and disruption it will create.
The road, which supporters tout as a multi-use corridor with a passenger highway, a roadway for trucking, a rail line and utility lines, takes a 1200-foot swath out of the rural areas it crosses. The roadway may claim another 200-foot right-of-way.
“It does not have to be that wide,” Hensen says.
He’s convinced that the road cuts through farmland instead of following Interstate 35 because of business and environmentalist interest.
“We’re giving up all this good farm land to protect some kind of sparrow,” he says. “No one seems interested in protecting farmers.”
The corridor is supposed to be a toll road but opponents question if tolls will pay the freight and point out that the contractor has already lobbied the Texas legislature for funds. Construction could begin within the next few years with a completion target of 2017. “They could break ground next year (near Laredo),” Loretta says.
“It would include six train tracks,” Hensen says. “I didn’t know that taxpayers were responsible for paying for rail and utility lines.” That chore usually goes to private enterprise, he says.
“We’re developing a grassroots opposition,” Loretta says. A Web site, www.corridorwatch.org, offers updates on opposition efforts.
“It’s been so secretive it’s scary,” Hensen says. He’s also concerned about the waterlines that will run alongside the roadway and railroad tracks. He fears large cities will pull water out of rural areas into municipalities, leaving farmers without adequate water for crop irrigation or livestock production.
They say plans have moved quickly to get the corridor on a fast track. “First we heard was in 2002,” Hensen says. “The people of Texas should be concerned about the loss of 100,000 acres of prime Blackland farm acreage. It’s wrong to take that much farmland out of production without adequate compensation. They could take less valuable acreage.”
The Hensens say the corridor still needs federal approval.
The Texas Farm Bureau opposes the corridor. Bureau President Kenneth Dierschke and members of the organization’s state board of directors have voiced their opposition at public forums. Their concern includes a fear that the proposed corridor will eventually swallow up many thousands of acres of Texas’ best farmland.
Dierschke says the corridor jeopardizes the region’s continued farming heritage. The Texas Farm Bureau also expresses concern over access to and from the different communities in the area and foreign country dealings in the crafting of the superhighway contracts.
A company from Spain, Cintra, has been awarded a contract to build the corridor.
“The Texas Farm Bureau is on record as being opposed to the Trans Texas Corridor,” Dierschke says. “Our voting delegates at our annual meetings have expressed their continued opposition to its construction.”
The Texas chapter of the National Farmers’ Union also opposes the corridor.
“We passed a resolution at our convention opposing it,” says Texas NFU President Wes Sims.
He has seen “a lot of anger” from Texas landowners who believe the corridor is a big land grab. He says the farm group has several concerns with the corridor.
The method of acquiring land tops the list. “They’re using eminent domain to take property,” he says, “with no consideration of the effects on the livelihood of property owners. It’s mostly agricultural acreage, away from cities, but farms will not be the only businesses affected.
“What happens to those small towns along the corridor route?” Sims says access along the corridor will be limited to major highways, leaving a lot of rural communities and the businesses they count on for their economic bases without access from the highways that funneled business into them for decades.
He said the corridor’s limited access also will affect farmers’ ability to get to stores, services, churches and schools. In some cases, the roadway will prevent reasonable access from one side of a farm to another. Potential to disrupt water availability also concerns land owners.
Sims says a lot of Texans are angry at the way the corridor came about. Texas voters approved an amendment to the state constitution allowing the legislature to alleviate traffic congestion along Interstate 35.
“But there were no details about how they would do it,” Sims says. “I voted against it and encouraged my members to do the same. Voters thought they were voting to improve traffic problems on I-35.
“I think the majority of Texas landowners opposed this corridor. It was done in a deceitful, tricky way.”
Sims says Texans still have options. “It’s not too late to stop it,” he says. “The legislature can do it.”
He says the citizens of Texas need to exert enough pressure on the legislature to force them to rescind the action.
The Goodhair, Granny, and Bell crowd are heading this way.
> This appears to be within reason for E.D. case <
Well, if there's really an E.D. problem, perhaps Bob Dole would be willing to take the case on a contingency basis.
The Joker crowd is the bunch that comes in and hollers "Goodhair".
What a shame these farmers will lose their federal ag subsidies for all those paved over acres.
Perhaps in Virginia y'all could give a hoot. We Texans have a genuine respect for the land and the fine folks that provide agricultural benefits, even ignorant Northerners. Nobody is celebrating good folks losing property or their livelihood. Northern folks scream and holler if they can not get produce, fuel oil, gasoline, electricity, or any of the other indulgences that derive from Texas. When y'all cease agricultural subsidies to every other state in this nation and Texas is the lone holdout, ping me. Until then, may I politely request a KMA.
Sorry, we are all out of oral and injectable. Do not put the suppositories in your mouth. "Cram it up your ..."
There's nothing "free" about it. Tolls are projected to start at 10 to 15 cents per mile.
"There's nothing "free" about it. Tolls are projected to start at 10 to 15 cents per mile."
OK, they're running a toll road parallel to I-35. As such it will presumably 1) Pay for itself, 2) Provide a pay alternative for those who wish to drive faster and 3) Reduce congestion on the free I-35.
I agree, why spend billions of dollars constructing a brand new interstate when you could just as easily expand I-35 several lanes wide. I understand the need to do something, because Texas'population will continue to grow and NAFTA is going to bring more trucks and cars to the area.
However, the thing that is strange to me is how they say they are going to build a hub in Kansas City for customs. Which would mean that Mexican and/or Canadian and or Central American (CAFTA) truckdrivers will not be able to stop for food/restrooms in Texas, unless they plan on building TTC only reststops. How is NAFTA supposed to be and open trade regime, if you have people stopping in the middle of the country.
I am actually pro-NAFTA will strict regulations, i.e. labor and environmental. Plus its ironic that in this era of increasing ethanol and cellulosic fuel sources we would pave acres of productive farmland with a road. Its just as easy to expand existing roads, and I-35. Add high speed rail to the major cities, and I suggest digging tunnels in around those major cities. If you're going to spend 184 billion dollars, do it near cities. Smart growth techniques should be considered in this approach to expanding of future growth. I would only consider toll roads if its near the cities.
TTC is only expanding unnecessary sprawl.
If they won't to check cargo then do it at the border.
"Its just as easy to expand existing roads, and I-35. Add high speed rail to the major cities, and I suggest digging tunnels in around those major cities"
Do you have any idea how much this would cost? The price of real estate along I-35 is only exceeded by the cost of digging tunnels. Where will the money come from? TTC-35 is paid for up front by investors who recoup their money by sharing toll revenue paid by the users.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.