Those who have driven to South Padre Island recently can't help but notice the massive construction through the wetlands of the Brownsville Navigation District as the 48-inch pipeline snakes its way to the Gulf of Mexico.
This unprecedented use of public lands for this potentially environmentally dangerous project has been decried in many forums. These protests, in conjunction with the outcry against the construction of the LNG plants in the Port of Brownsville has set off a heated dispute between those who welcome the plants as a way to promote manufacturing and jobs and those who point to the potential for pollution and damage to the wetlands and hypersaline lagunas that serve as nurseries and refuge for many gamefish, endangered wildlife and shellfish like shrimp and other species.
That, in turn, has created a political chasm between those who see the protests as a movement by retirees and residents living in communities along the coastline (Laguna Vista, SPI, etc.) in conflict with people in the county who see the plants as a potential for employment and economic development.
And politicians are scurrying to define their stands on the issue, much as did others on the west side of Brownsville for the West Rail Road/Trail. Sides have been drawn, and many political figures have been identified with either side. And just as there have been recriminations at the voting booth, so it has been when it comes to the LNGs.
The first line of demarcation was when the Brownsville Navigation District commissioners approved the leasing of huge tracts of land for at least five LNG companies who plunked down their money to rent the land for their future plants. Their justification was that if the companies dotted all their "I"s and crossed all their "T"s with the proper environmental state and federal agencies, there was little legal justification they could use to keep them out.
Once the approval had been given, their contractual obligations to rent them the properties could not be withdrawn on pain of costly litigation that could potentially cost the port (and taxpayers) millions. In other words, the horse was out of the barn and could not be put back. That consideration is offset by environmental and other single-issue groups who will not back off from their opinion that anyone who as much as considers approving them plants or other economic incentives and tax abatements for the plants doesn't belong in public office.
Take the county commissioners' approval of $373,100,000. in tax abatements for Rio Grande LNG last October. The actual investment is actually $15.7 billion dollars that will essentially almost double the county’s current tax base. The four county commissioners who voted for the agreement between the company and the port, the state , and the county cited economic development, infrastructure improvements, and an estimated 5,000 construction jobs and 300 permanent jobs created if the export terminal gets built at the Port of Brownsville.
Under the terms of the agreement, county officials say they have been guaranteed a minimum of 35 percent of construction and permanent jobs for local residents. If this does not happen, the company will be penalized with payments for missing the target on this benchmark. The company had first offered 20 percent of the those jobs to local residents, but relented and increased the percentage to 35 to acquire the commissioners' votes.
The commissioners who voted to approve the deal were Sofia Benavides, Alex Dominguez, Davbid Garza and Gus Ruiz. County Judge Eddie Treviño voted not to approve it.
Now, the judge knew that the four votes would be there in support of the agreement so his "no" vote would not matter. And the political benefit from denying the vote in the upcoming elections in November would potentially help him in the race against Republican county judge candidate Carlos Cascos.
Will it translate into the deciding edge Treviño needs to go win?
He has plenty of money, according to his campaign reports. But just as the West Trail advocates have found out, the deal between the city and the county for the abandoned railroad right-of-way also includes plans for a road, something that candidates who went before them – including Treviño – assured them they would not support. Once the realpolitik set in, however, all deals were off. It takes money to run for office and few candidates turn down money for their races.
If we are to deal with this issue with our eyes wide open, then we should also question why the judge accepts campaign contributions from the law firm representing one of the LNGs. According to reports, attorney Keith Uhles, of Royston Rayzor Vickery, lobbied his firm to give him at least $2,500 in 2017.
Does receiving money from a company doing business with the LNGs make Treviño suspect in the eyes of the anti-LNG groups? Or is there a buffer because it didn't come from the companies themselves? These questions have to be addressed before people demonize candidates in the upcoming elections. To be against one and justify the other would be intellectually dishonest.