Replies

Your spirit of concensus and respect is admirable and honorable. The hyperbole that has been thrown out to date is significantly on the "anti" side. I firmly agree that any transfer of private property must be subject to agreement, scrutiny, and review. Mineral rights absolutely must be taken into account. The "pro" position has not done an adequate job of researching, addressing, and validating the concerns of citizens that may be impacted. The two hearings that I attended were too "mechanical" in my opinion. Agriculture and cattle are essential for Texas, as is natural gas and oil. Great people have staked their livelyhoods and reputations on productive land for several generations here. Yet for those that are dead set against private business, even foreign business, look around at the railroads. They are all the private property of the railroad.

That said, I still support citizens being offered fair value for property. Whether for private or public works. The county commissioners court and the Texas Railroad Commissioners weild much more power than a governor. "RAILROAD COMMISSION. Although it is only a state agency, the Texas Railroad Commission has been historically one of the most important regulatory bodies in the nation. This is because for much of the twentieth century it has strongly influenced the supply and price of oil and natural gas throughout the United States. As its name implies, the commission was originally established to oversee railroads. Riding a wave of Populist-style resentment of the railroads, James S. Hoggqv won the governorship in 1890 largely on his promise to have them regulated. The state constitution had been simultaneously amended to allow such a body, and in 1891 the legislature established the commission, giving it jurisdiction over rates and operations of railroads, terminals, wharves, and express companies." http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/RR/mdr1.html Unless one believes that the Federal Interstate Commerce Commission will do what is best for Texas and Texans.

I firmly agree that any transfer of private property must be subject to agreement, scrutiny, and review. Mineral rights absolutely must be taken into account.

And I suspect that is what will happen. I can't see the good 'ol boys in the Texas legislature not providing the protection to their constituents when they agreed to imminent domain. I had some 52 acres taken for a roadway expansion project and got current market value based upon sales of like property in the area and retained the mineral rights. Granted this property was in Louisiana and thus I don't know the specifics of Texas law. It is possible that many of the Texas landowners don't have all the mineral rights anyway as Texas allowed original owners to retain the rights without ever letting them go but if they do they should be able to retain them and not let the state take that. The State only needs surface rights for a roadway.