Weighing in on the nuclear plant

Precinct 3 Victoria commissioner candidates discuss benefits, detriments

  • Print
  • 10 Comments
  • Favorite
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close

The possibility of a nuclear plant being built in Victoria County could inject new energy into the race for Precinct 3 county commissioner.

While the effects of the plant - good or bad - would be felt countywide and regionwide, the Exelon Nuclear facility would be built near McFaddin in Precinct 3.

Gary Burns, the Republican incumbent, said he embraces the idea of the plant, but Democratic challenger Ron Reyna said he's still undecided.

Burns said when he first heard about the proposal, he was asked to be on the team wooing Exelon Nuclear.

"I told them I needed some facts because I didn't know anything about it and it was directly affecting my precinct," he said. "We don't decide this just because it's going to be a benefit and we think it's going to make us all millionaires."

Burns has since visited other nuclear plants, including Exelon-owned Three Mile Island, and spoken with business owners and average people. He has become convinced the plant would be good for Victoria.

Reyna said he's also studied the issue and continues to do so.

"I'm not 100 percent for it or against it," he said. "There are a lot of good points and there are a lot of bad points. We've got to make sure we can live with this thing for the next 200 years."

Burns said after World War II, it was the industrial plants that helped provide good paying, dependable jobs to Victoria County residents. The nuclear plant would do the same thing for today's shaky economy, he said.

"With our current financial situation, we're all scared to death," Burns said. "This is a tremendous economic benefit."

Besides helping the local economy, the nuclear plant would help feed the state's growing hunger for electricity.

Reyna said there is a possibility the plant will help restaurants, home sales and other businesses.

"But on the other hand, when the plant is done, as a result of the plant, we're going to have higher property taxes," he said. "Anytime you have a boon, property values go up and there will be a boon when this thing kicks off."

But the boon will die out and the property taxes probably won't go down, he said.

Exelon has said the plant would need 75,000 acre-feet of water for its cooling process. That's about 7.5 times more than the city of Victoria uses in a typical year.

Burns said he's tired of hearing the argument about the plant using so much water. The water rights are owned by the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, which will try to sell the water.

"That water will go somewhere for economic benefit," Burns said. "We need to keep it down here instead of sending it in a pipeline to San Antonio."

That way it will provide jobs and boost the local economy, he said.

Reyna said he belongs to the Water Research Group that has been tracking water issues in the region.

"We have been fighting to keep our water in Victoria," he said. The group's research has raised questions about whether the river authority has enough water available for the nuclear plant.

"The science they're using isn't as sound as you would like it to be," Reyna said. "San Antonio has been trying to get all the water they can get. Now, all of a sudden, the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority has all this excess water San Antonio has been wishing and praying for, and now they're offering it to the nuclear project."

Because the plant would be in the Refugio school district, Refugio would get the school property taxes instead of Victoria.

Burns said he doesn't have a problem with that.

"From what I understand, under the Robin Hood Plan, Refugio is already considered a rich district and that money would be redirected to other school systems," Burns said. "I think it's possible that we can redirect it here."

But the plant would still increase property taxes for the Victoria district and other taxing agencies because of the new homes and businesses that would result from the associated growth, Burns said.

Reyna said it's the sad truth that Refugio's schools would get the property tax income. Yet Victoria's schools would get an extra 4,000 to 7,000 students because of the plant, he said.

"Our school board has worked long and hard to put together a plan to build a new school system with smaller classrooms and better student-to-teacher ratios," he said. "If this thing comes into play right after we have built all these schools, our schools are going to have portable buildings outside these new facilities."



  • Print
  • 10 Comments
  • Favorite
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close

Comments


  • Ken, "clean coal" has many definitions. Coal fired plants already remove particulates except in China and India. That haze you see especially out west is not caused by particulates, its SO2. Some coal plants in the US remove SO2 with scrubbers, but most plants don't have them.
    Then there is the IGCC Process that makes liquids and gas out of coal. This process is what is usually referred to as "clean coal” it removes all pollutants except CO2. This process has had many problems and is a long way from commercial use.
    The ultimate "clean coal" is CO2 sequestration. That is what some politicians mean when they refer to "clean coal." The "greens" have turned on coal completely. They are against it in any form and they still oppose nuclear power.
    Human induced global warming, I'm sorry to say is not garbage. I wish it were, but there is too much evidence to the contrary. The people that claim it is not true say we have had warming in the past and that this current warming is not unusual.   They also do not deny that CO2 is a green house gas. And they agree that CO2 keeps the planet warm and prevents it from freezing completely. All they do is deny that’s it - hardly a convincing argument.
    But getting back to water I hope the Guadalupe has enough, I think it does. The proposed water storage lagoon should allow the nuclear plant to run up to a year during a severe drought and even longer if they reduce electrical generation.
     

    November 1, 2008 at 8:21 a.m.
  • Good post Ken. Keep up the good work,I for one appreciate your efforts.

    November 1, 2008 at 3:21 a.m.
  •  
    If not a nuclear plant then what ? Coal fired units will use about the same amount of water. Oh, I forgot about "clean coal" it will probably also use about the same amount of water, that is if they can get it to work.
    My point is if there's enough water to run coal fired units there will be enough to run nuclear units. No one seems to mention water when coal fired units are proposed.
    The other alternative of course is wind and solar energy. We will rue the day we become heavily dependent on these energy sources.
    The final alternative is to curtail our electricity use. If we don't build any new plants that is what will happen. Electricity rationing - Gee, I can hardly wait.
     

    October 31, 2008 at 9:28 p.m.
  • First, as I understand it, the water GBRA is proposing to sell to Exelon are the senior rights on the river. Therefore they would be honored as long as there is water in the channel. I don't think we have seen a drought that has dried up the river, much less dried it up for more than 2 years.

    Second, I am not aware of any formal plans for GBRA to use the 22K acre feet (75K minus 53K) of water up country. Of course if Exelon ends up not needing the full 75K GBRA would be free to use such water as it sees fit.  Can you site your source please?

    Finally, again, as I understand it, surface-water rights issued after about 1985 are subject to some environmental flows restrictions. Therefore, the senior rights GBRA has, which were granted before 1985, are not formally subject to the same restrictions as recently granted water rights. Other surface-face water rights across the state are treated similarly based on the date of their issue.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind to the dangers of taking too much water from the river (I actually favor capturing "excess" flood waters in off-channel reservoirs), however, I think we should keep the facts straight and argue from the high ground. So please, keep the discussion going.

    October 31, 2008 at 6:11 p.m.
  • Reterich???? LOL

    October 31, 2008 at 10:27 a.m.
  • Kenneth, where do you find the time to leave all of these lengthly comments? Maybe you should get a job doing something to solve these problems instead of just typing about them? Reterich thats all it is Reterich.

    October 31, 2008 at 9:32 a.m.
  • Thanks for the comments, Ken. Mr. Burns is right in that the good people of Victoria really don't have any control over the water in the Guadalupe, GBRA does. Not too many folks here want to mention that Victoria used to have very senior water rights on the Guradlupe, but gave them up many years ago in favor of groundwater. When the decision was made to switch back to surface water, Victoria then had to take a back seat to others who had retained their rights. Great planning, huh? It seems to me that mr. Reyna may not know everything he needs to know to make a decision on this issue, or perhaps he just can't make a decision. Could that be true on every issue he will face? And why would VISD want several thousand more students if they can't fit what they have into their facilities? Doesn't make much sense to me. Oh, I know! Build more, tax more, spend more!

    October 31, 2008 at 7:47 a.m.