|
| |
Features | Published: June 13, 2013
AUSTIN — An issue of a supremely contentious nature, redistricting, is the reason lawmakers are still at work in a 30-day special session, and a great deal of citizen input is being gathered before the coming House and Senate floor debates.
When Gov. Perry called the special session on May 27, it was his intention that the Legislature would move quickly to make “permanent” the redistricting maps drawn by a federal court last year and used in the November 2012 election. With that task behind them, the Legislature then might take up other matters of the governor’s choice. But Perry has added nothing to the call, perhaps seeing that redistricting is sufficiently demanding on its own.
Meanwhile, the Texas House of Representatives on June 3 met briefly and recessed until June 17 to give its Select Committee on Redistricting time to conduct public hearings in Austin and other cities (Dallas on June 6 and San Antonio on June 7). The Texas Senate adjourned until June 12 and its Select Committee on Redistricting met at the Capitol, received citizen input and scheduled more hearings to receive additional input from citizens in Corpus Christi on June 7 and in Houston on June 8.
| Published: June 13, 2013
 The 23rd Congressional District is home to a large military population. The local economy is dependent on a large military presence. In the 1800s, a string of forts (Fort Inge, Fort Duncan, Fort Clark, Fort Lancaster, Fort Stockton, Fort Davis, Fort Quitman) guarded settlers and commerce along the difficult road from San Antonio to El Paso.
Today, many residents work as civilians or serve as active duty personnel at Camp Bullis, Laughlin Air Force Base, Lackland Air Force Base, Brooke Army Medical Center or Fort Bliss. Further, many more residents have served their country honorably and well as members of the armed services.
About 1.6 million Veterans call Texas home. 64,000 of these men and women reside in the 23rd congressional district.
My position on the House Armed Services Committee has allowed me to serve constituent well. With that role- I have been able to pass a second amendment to helps veterans find employment by supporting job training programs for these men and women. I attached this amendment to H.R. 2216, the 2014 Military Construction and Department of Veterans Affairs appropriations bill which passed the House on a bipartisan voice vote.
| Published: June 13, 2013
 A bit of Texas history
At one time, all land was owned by the state (or sovereign). Private ownership began when the state conveyed the property to a private individual. This transaction is sometimes referred to as the patent or land grant. Over time, different sovereigns patented land in Texas.
Spain issued the first patent in 1730. By 1830, Spain and Mexico combined had patented more than 26 million acres. Under these Spanish land grants, title to the minerals remained with the sovereign even though not specifically reserved. When Texas won its independence, it acquired vast amounts of unsurveyed land. The state recognized the former Spanish land grants and continued to reserve the minerals in its patents.
The railroads agreed to survey this remote area in return for receiving ownership of every other section of land. Unlike the metes-and-bounds legal description used in the Spanish land grants, the railroad surveys divided the acreage into blocks and sections. A block contained 36 sections; a section contained 640 acres.
For the most part, Texas kept the even-numbered sections and granted the odd-numbered ones to the railroads without retaining the minerals. This created a checkerboard effect on mineral ownership maps.
The state placed the retained acreage (approximately 42.5 million acres) in the Public School and Asylum Fund to ensure a free public education to its citizens.
Private ownership of minerals
In the 1860s, when Sam Houston was president of the republic, an ownership dispute involving salt erupted in South Texas. The outcome forever changed mineral law in this state. The issue focused on the ownership of salt left in deposits when the Gulf of Mexico receded centuries earlier. Salt trade existed in the area from prehistoric times through the Civil War. The republic claimed the revenue from the sales because Texas owned the minerals and salt is a mineral.
|
|
| |
|
|
