An Interesting Race

An article in today's Houston Chronicle reminds me that Capitalism Magazine has a really good piece on the pork-laden "energy bill" that is waddling its way through Congress. According to Ben Lieberman:

In the hands of Congress, the energy bill has morphed into a farm bill, an environmental bill, and above all else, a massive pork-barrel bill. But what we really need is a true energy bill, one that frees energy markets from unnecessary regulatory constraints and opens up new sources of supply. There are a few such provisions in the bill -- like facilitating approvals for hydroelectric power plants and encouraging investments in electric transmission lines -- but only a few.

A peek into the barrel (via the Chron) reveals this particularly ironic tidbit.

The comprehensive energy bill signed into law this week by President Bush includes $240 million that Texas can use to fight coastal erosion and repair shoreline damaged by storms in recent years.

The money, expected to begin flowing in 2007, could pay for a new, wide beach along Galveston's Seawall Boulevard, as well as beach protection and restoration projects all along the state's 400-mile shoreline, state officials say. The Texas General Land Office and Gov. Rick Perry will decide what projects will be funded. [bold added]

...

Including this year's $7 million, the Legislature has appropriated nearly $35 million since 1999 to finance coastal-preservation programs under the state's Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Act.

Some of that money, along with federal matching funds, has been used to finance numerous projects, including a $2.8 million beach restoration project now under way along Surfside Beach in Brazoria County [emphasis added].

My regular readers will recall that I recently mentioned plans by the state of Texas to kick a man out of his own house (on the beach in Brazoria County) and make him foot the bill to tear it down -- after beach erosion caused his house to be on land claimed by the state as its property. Quoting the news story from that post:

The State Land Office [link added], which said Royer's properties are in clear violation of the law, is suing to force Royer not only to remove his homes, but also to foot the bill for the work.

"My son's college education goes away," Royer said. "If we have to move it, our lives will change dramatically."

Which makes me wonder about something. Assuming the beach nourishment occurs where this domicile is: Will the house go down before the beach comes back? And if so, will the state auction off what used to be Royer's land?

If we're going to be robbed of our tax money for this, I, for one, would like to at least see Royer get to keep his own home.

In fact, I'd like to see him keep it regardless of whether the beach gets rebuilt in his area as he was told he would back in 1999.

-- CAV

PS: I'm not exactly a civic gadfly, but if you think it might help to complain to the Texas General Land Office, their complaint form is here.