The 2010 election put an
end to that. By ousting the previous
Town Council majority, the citizens of our community made it very clear: WE
DO NOT SUPPORT DRILLING NEAR HOMES AND SCHOOLS!
This election season candidates
realize there is only one “right” side of the urban drilling issue. The candidates working together to unseat NFL
are frantically revising history to make us believe they are on our side. They are not letting the truth stand in their
way.
They’re pushing crazy
conspiracies and false accusations to put doubt in the minds of voters around
the very officials who shepherded in this new era of protection: Melissa Northern, Al Filidoro, and Steve Lyda
– NFL.
It is nothing short of
ridiculous. I almost considered ignoring it since it is so clearly political
posturing. Ultimately, though, I decided
that for those who don’t have in-depth knowledge of our long history of gas
drilling in Flower Mound, providing a refresher course on what has really
happened would be helpful. My intention is not to “smear” any candidates but to
clear up innuendo and half-truths being spread by some of Hayden, Dixon, and
Webb’s supporters. I have been in this a long, long time and my history on this
subject goes back many years.
When reading the blog you will
see I have listened to all sides of the story. My journey for the truth has
provided me with the facts and I gladly share them with all who care to listen.As you read through this, the details are there to prove the point
but are really less important than the message.
Why would any candidate revise history?
Can you trust a candidate who is willing to lie to you to get
elected?
I want to start with this
statement from Tom Hayden's website: “Just
weeks after the NFL took office, residents including members of council, were
given just 72 hours notice that the Williams Settlement had been placed on the
agenda by Mayor Northern for the upcoming council meeting. ... The reason for
this settlement was never clearly explained.”
The Truth:
Tom Hayden was included in emails
and participated in discussions about the settlement starting more than two
months before the settlement was on the agenda.
In a March 1, 2010, email from
the Town Attorney to all members of Town Council (excluding two of them, Smith
and Levenick, who had signed leases with Williams and therefore had a conflict
of interest), Council was informed that Williams wished to work out a
settlement of all outstanding issues with the Town. Every member of Council
agreed that there was no harm in exploring a settlement discussion with
Williams, although no specific deal points were defined. The settlement would
have addressed the pending Mockingbird
Pipeline lawsuit and other related issues. Council entered into the lawsuit with
Mockingbird based on a two/two deadlock with Steve Dixon and Mike Wallace
wanting to settle with Williams and Al Filidoro and Tom Hayden agreeing to
authorize the town attorney to defend the town against Williams’ encroachment
on town property.
The status of the Mockingbird Pipeline lawsuit/Williams
settlement was addressed in Town Council closed sessions on April 19, 2010;
June 21, 2010; July 6, 2010; July 19, 2010; August 2, 2010; August 16, 2010;
and September 7, 2010.
On
May 12, 2010, along with Town staff members, Councilmember Hayden, the
Mayor-Elect and Councilmember Filidoro met to discuss various Town issues,
including a detailed discussion about a settlement with Williams.
On June 16, 2010, each member of
Town Council received a detailed memorandum from the Town Attorney spelling out
the proposed terms of a settlement agreement with Williams; a copy of the
proposed settlement agreement was also provided.
Later that same day (June 16,
2010), Councilmember Hayden provided comments via e-mail about
the proposed settlement agreement including the type of landscaping he
preferred. He copied other Councilmembers about his thoughts on the proposed
settlement agreement. Also on June 16, the Town Attorney responded to the
issues Councilmember Hayden raised in his e-mail.
Other Councilmembers also raised
questions and provided input about the proposed settlement agreement. On June
18, 2010, in an attorney/client document, the entire Council was provided
detailed information about compression facilities at the Williams pad site.
By Saturday, June 19, 2010, a
fourth version of the settlement agreement was exchanged between the parties
and a detailed memorandum provided by the Town Attorney to the entire Town
Council about the latest revisions to the proposed settlement agreement. After
additional discussions with individual members of the Town Council, a revised
agreement was forwarded to Williams on June 21, 2010.
On the afternoon of June 21,
2010, each member of Town Council received a bullet point outline from the Town
Attorney detailing the items referenced in the proposed settlement agreement
that were not already contained in Town ordinances.
After additional revisions, late
on the afternoon of June 21, 2010, a finalized version of the proposed
settlement agreement was forwarded by the Town Attorney to Town Council.
During the Town Council meeting
on June 21, 2010, while addressing the proposed settlement agreement and how it
came about, the Town Attorney stated that Town Council had been kept abreast of
the process (Book 38, Page 489, Town Council Minutes). Nowhere during the
discussion of the proposed settlement agreement did any Councilmember state
that he or she was unaware of the proposed settlement agreement or had been
taken by surprise that it was on the agenda. Several Councilmembers discussed
the settlement agreement’s proposed terms in great detail. If the proposed
settlement agreement was a surprise to any of them, they certainly hid their
surprise well! In fact, Tom Hayden himself told me he participated in a meeting
with Williams prior to the settlement being presented to the public.
The reasons for the proposed
settlement agreement were explained to all Councilmembers in detail on multiple
occasions. If any Councilmember believed anything was unclear about the
proposed settlement agreement, there were many opportunities to address those
concerns. Every Councilmember contacted the Town Attorney with input, thoughts,
questions, suggestions, and concerns.
The Truth: Flower Mound does not have a Centralized Collection Facility.
Flower Mound has had a
Centralized “Compression” Facility since 2008, NOT a Centralized “Collection” Facility.
The compression facility was unanimously approved by the Oil & Gas Board of
Appeals on February 13, 2008. At the 2008 OGBOA hearing on the Central
Compression Facility application, no one spoke in opposition to the facility
and the Town Council had no role in the approval or denial of the variance
request. If the Town Council had been opposed to the approval of the variance
for the compression facility, the only recourse for the Town Council would have
been to sue the OGBOA. In any case this
all took place before NFL was in office.
The Truth: NFL has
stopped the industrialization of Flower Mound.
During NFL’s tenure on Council, the 26 gas wells that have been approved were on existing pad sites and were already in progress and applied for with the Texas Railroad Commission and the town before NFL took office in May 2010. Every well fell under the 2007 weakened ordinance. NO NEW WELLS HAVE BEEN APPROVED UNDER THE NEW ORDINANCE!
As has been explained to the Oil
and Gas Advisory Board and the Oil & Gas Board of Appeals, state law requires that once the Town is
aware of a permit (even without a formal application), the applicant’s rights
vest. The failure to recognize this vesting is a violation of state law. This also has been
explained by the Town Attorney or members of his office on multiple occasions
at Town Council meetings and board and commission meetings.
I served on the Oil and Gas
Advisory Board and we discussed "vested interest" as it pertains to
Oil and Gas drilling in the State of Texas numerous times. To ignore a vested interest is a
violation of state law; municipal ordinances cannot “trump” state law.
The Truth: NFL had
no means to stop the Hilliard airfield pad site.
We have heard for almost two
years that “there is room for legal debate on this issue.” Where is any legal
opinion that supports that statement? Hayden, Dixon, and Webb supporters,
including Councilmember Stephenson, have been asked for copies of legal
opinions they purportedly obtained from outside lawyers — and in no event has
any of them ever provided a copy of a legal opinion.
The facts are: The Texas Railroad Commission approved the
permit for the Hilliard pad site in September 2009. In October 2009, Titan put in their first
application with the Town for the Hilliard pad site. Because of the timing the Hilliard application was vested under
the old gas ordinance. The pad site met the requirements of the old
ordinance, therefore the town was obliged to administratively approve it Town Council is obligated to follow all laws and
ordinances, even those that were adopted by prior councils, whether they agree
or not. In the Hilliard case, the
council could not reasonably challenge this permit and win in a court of law.
On September 10, 2010, the Town
provided residents with a lengthy, detailed analysis of the Hilliard pad site
permit. The permit was also discussed in
depth at the September 20, 2010, Town Council meeting. Issues raised by
citizens about the Hilliard pad site were explored. Click here to read the
power point presentation. The issue of Hilliard’s vested rights remained. Some residents just did not like the
response.
The issue has been raised that
Mr. Hilliard needed a variance to remove trees on his property and that the
failure to receive a variance was a basis upon which to deny his drilling
permit. This contention is wrong. Since the adoption of the first tree ordinance
by the Town in the 1990's, an owner
of any property zoned agricultural is permitted to remove up to 19 protected
trees annually. Only an administrative tree removal permit is required. A tree removal request on agriculturally
zoned property does not go before a board and does not require a Town Council
vote.
An agricultural tree removal permit differs from the other types
of tree removal permits discussed in the tree ordinance in several ways. First,
this type of permit does not have to be associated with any type of property
development. Second, the only criteria necessary for approval is that the
property be zoned agricultural and that the trees be protected trees and not
specimen trees. The Town’s tree ordinance does not require the property owner
to give a reason for requesting the agricultural tree removal permit. Town
staff verified that all trees requested for removal were protected trees, not
specimen trees, and the applicant requested to remove 19 protected trees, as
permitted by ordinance.
NFL did campaign on not being
afraid of a lawsuit but this was always understood to mean they would not be
bullied when the Town was in the right, not that they would irresponsibility
invite legal challenge by taking positions that had no legal justification. To
fight simply for the sake of fighting when the law and facts are clearly not on
your side is a waste of taxpayer dollars, particularly when the Town will be
financially liable. We
should expect town staff and elected officials to be fiscal stewards of
taxpayers’ money and not subject the town to frivolous legal risk even if the
public doesn’t like the law... With the
exception of the “mystery lawyers” referenced by several Town residents over
the years, no credible
attorney has ever contended that the Town could deny the Hilliard permit.
It is interesting to note
that Hayden/Dixon/Webb supporters often cite NFL’s adherence to the law as some
sort of breach of trust and yet both Dixon and Hayden served on Council at the
same time and likewise followed the law in the same manner as NFL.
The Truth: NFL always works in a transparent manner to
protect Flower Mound from industrialization by gas drillers.
As noted in response to the first
item from the Hayden website, if Councilmember Hayden or any other
Councilmember only had 72 hours’ notice that the proposed Williams settlement
agreement was on the agenda, then they simply did not read their e-mail, agenda
packets, or communications from the Town Attorney.
All Councilmembers were fully
apprised of the proposed Williams settlement agreement and had been notified
repeatedly about it. Councilmembers offered input into the proposed settlement
agreement and commented upon it. Steve Dixon expressed his excitement that 6
items from his "wish list" made it to the settlement. The fact that
Councilmembers commented upon the proposed agreement did not mean that they
were in favor of it — they were simply asking questions about it. The normal
process for the Town Council is to comment and question, which also happened in
this case.
In fact, and regardless of the
above, Town Council unanimously chose to reject any settlement agreement with
Williams. In any lawsuit, it is customary for the parties to attempt to
negotiate a settlement prior to trial. The Court almost always demands an
attempted negotiation and the legal system strongly encourages the parties to
come together and see if a controversy can be worked out prior to trial. In
some cases, settlements can be worked out and in some, like this one, they
cannot. Entering into negotiations does not tacitly mean that there is any
agreement; here, it meant that Williams’ attorneys and town staff, worked on a
proposed agreement, and after review, it was determined by the entire Town
Council that a settlement could not be reached.
There was no settlement on the
above Williams litigation and no future settlements were entered into by the
Town. The parties proceeded forward in the case. Ultimately, the Town of Flower Mound
prevailed and Mockingbird Pipeline/Williams paid $55,000 to the Town as
reimbursement of its legal fees.
As
mentioned above, no new wells or pad sites have been approved under the Town’s
new oil and gas ordinance. Any
administrative approvals of additional wells were based on permits filed prior
to the NFL’s strengthening of the oil and gas ordinance in 2011. While many of us would have loved for the
Town to have had the latitude to tacitly reject permits vested under the old
ordinance, case law is well established that we would not have prevailed in
court. I hope you will remember who shepherded in this new era of protection. When
someone wants to throw stones at these clear leaders in the fight against urban
drilling, consider the source and their motivation. Without the burden of the responsibility of
governing, it’s easy to stand on the outside and ignore legal precedent in
order to justify one’s beliefs. As
citizens we can engage in wishful thinking but our elected officials cannot. They have a duty to act responsibly.. NFL has
acted responsibly and also done all they can to protect this community. As for the purveyors of conspiracy and
innuendo, and the candidates they support, I don’t expect my comments to be
persuasive to them at all because no amount of legal reasoning or precedent will
deter someone who chooses to stay ignorant or ignore the law.
My comments
are not intended for those vested in a particular candidate slate, those
insistent on being right about some inane aspect of the ordinance, or someone
with an axe to grind. They are intended
for consideration by the vast majority of residents who are simply vested in
what is best for Flower Mound. I am
available by email on this blog for anyone who wants to discuss this
further.
