• Why was the final article removed? I thought JJ did a great job...or maybe it was me that upset someone? I certainly hope not. I guess somebody called CC whining...well, the truth hurts so get over it, Mr. or Ms. Whiner. JJ, you did a GREAT job covering the hearing. Keep up the good work!

    May 13, 2010 at 7:03 a.m.
  • If worst comes to worst, construction workers could agree to not work. Truckers could block roads, suppliers businesses (legally) disrupted, and people could be hired on to inflate cost. Not to mention using F.B.I. “group disorganization” tactics; I personally like listening to “Ozzy” but not so much bright lights in my face.

    For the record, I’m just suggesting legal “organized counter” tactics.

    We are talking about something, that is a real potential threat to everyone’s quality of life, especially the children.

    South Texas has no need for this, the only motivation is greed and “someone’s” political agenda.

    May 11, 2010 at 1:04 p.m.
  • It’s like Alice in Wonderland; The further down the hole you go, the more things only make sense, if you are insane.

    In this world Commons Sense, is whatever your “corporate masters” want.

    There oath.

    [I pledge my allegiance to the United Corporate State, and to the bottom line in which it stands, against all cost to the public good, for oppression of countering opinions to what it stands,…]

    If the government gave Native Americans blankets, with small pox, so that they could clear the land for “development”. What’s contaminating the drinking water of an area predominately “Mexican-American”?

    This “development’, threatens 100’s of years of Texas heritage and culture; because it threatens the drinking water of South Texas. Farmers and Ranchers know, without clean water, everything goes.

    May 11, 2010 at 12:47 p.m.
  • Amazing how the TCEQ has decided that mining is in the public interest, even though the public has mounted a legal defense and has challenged them in every way.

    Negative aspects, such as the possible contamination of an entire aquifer were "considered ... in a general way.."?

    When the public is screaming, "No in situ mining in our aquifer," I would think Murray would understand that the public interest lies in preventing the mining.

    So, apparently Murray has not considered the public interest one whit and is focused on the mining business interest.

    So much for working for the PEOPLE of Texas.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:32 a.m.
  • This is not in the "public interest". Mr. Murray has obviously been brainwashed by the system. I guess when you're stuck in a cubicle for that many years, you just lose touch with what's really out there. What part of "drinking water aquifer" or "Underground Source of Drinking Water" is hard to understand?

    May 11, 2010 at 7:38 a.m.