Which major Texas metropolitan area is prepared to handle growth next 30 years the best (Houston: rent, schools)

[die Eichkatze]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

I pay a little less than $23 a month for water. I never use more than 3 thousand gallons which is the minimum meter read . This includes the recent application of the so-called rain tax. May I ask what you pay and at what point do you think the cost of water will become a drag on growth?

For 3,000 gallons: ~$16 for water, $36 for sewer. I don't think the cost to the consuer will be the problem, water is undervalued in my opinion. The supply/availibility side is where growth will be hurt.

Originally Posted by majicdonjuan

I think the answer to that question is when it becomes expensive relative to other states. Say you're a brewery or microchip manufacturer, for example. These are both water intensive businesses. Considering the amount of water you'll use on a yearly basis, would you choose to start your business in Texas or somewhere where water may only cost you 50 or 60% of what it does in Texas? Of course there are other factors when thinking about competitiveness, but water intensive business would definitely take a hit.
------------
Treating the water or the capacity to do so is not the issue. The issue is availability, period. As in there's not going to be enough supply to satisfy the demand of all users, residential, commercial, and industrial. That by itself will discourage businesses from coming to the state. We can only support the population we have the resources to and if we can't do some combination of finding new supply and reducing consumption, we're going to be in a world of hurt regardless of who the utilities choose to punish most directly. I'm more focusing on the supply side.

Correct. I would go one step further and add non-interruptible supply. Constantly going into restrictions/curtailments would also cause businesses to avoid moving or expanding in a city. If they have to cut production because of supply restrictions, they probably will find greener pastures.

[die Eichkatze]

Originally Posted by TheOverdog

The 10th Ammendment was rendered toothless a long time ago by the Commerce Clause.

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), in the context of World War II, the Court ruled that federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm – that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The rationale was that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat.

Read that and tell me that the Supreme Court couldn't easily apply it to water rights if they chose to do so. It's ridiculous reasoning, and I'd agree it's a total end-run around the 10th Ammendment, but that same rationale has been applied often whenever the feds need it to do so.

Could be the case. We will find out at least part of the answer soon with multiple cases dealing with water disputes between states before the SC currently....
Texass vs New Mexico: Texas calls on Supreme Court to settle water dispute with New... | www.statesman.com

Tarrant Regional Water vs Oklahoma: U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Tarrant-Oklahoma water dispute | News | News from Fort...

Georgia vs Tennesee: Georgians dream of tapping Tennessee to end water woes | www.ajc.com

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by majicdonjuan

Treating the water or the capacity to do so is not the issue. The issue is availability, period. As in there's not going to be enough supply to satisfy the demand of all users, residential, commercial, and industrial. That by itself will discourage businesses from coming to the state. We can only support the population we have the resources to and if we can't do some combination of finding new supply and reducing consumption, we're going to be in a world of hurt regardless of who the utilities choose to punish most directly. I'm more focusing on the supply side.

However, your suggestion about water treatment is good from the consumption side - using reclaimed water and purple pipe systems for lawns and cars would at least reduce our consumption to some degree, thus reducing our demand for fresh water. I could see that as a part of the ultimate solution.

I understand that but current water prices are a pretty good indicator of the present supply of water, don't you think? I know you are looking at the big picture but sometimes a snapshot can go along way to telling the story.....or are we subsidizing water use in this state?

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by die Eichkatze

For 3,000 gallons: ~$16 for water, $36 for sewer. I don't think the cost to the consuer will be the problem, water is undervalued in my opinion. The supply/availibility side is where growth will be hurt.

Correct. I would go one step further and add non-interruptible supply. Constantly going into restrictions/curtailments would also cause businesses to avoid moving or expanding in a city. If they have to cut production because of supply restrictions, they probably will find greener pastures.

Thats pretty expensive, that $23 I pay is water and sewer combined. So I guess we can surmise from the price, that Houston has a better supply of water than where you are.

Where are these greener pastures, just about every place in the whole country that is growing, is in the more arid parts of the country, besides Houston that is..

[die Eichkatze]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

Thats pretty expensive, that $23 I pay is water and sewer combined. So I guess we can surmise from the price, that Houston has a better supply of water than where you are.

Not really, fairly average from what I've seen throughout the state. Houston does have a better supply of water than where I live, but you can't go just off prices. The town just south of me is almost double my rate and we are about even as far as supply goes. Private water utility companies in some cases are 3 or 4 times my rates. Some have base rates of over $100 per month even before you use a single drop of water.

Price paid isn't a good indicator of supply. There are many factors that go into the price paid. Public vs private utilities can be worlds apart on price, but get their water from the same source. What if you have more than enough water for your city, but that source is 100 miles away and the infrastructure to bring it there cost a lot....good supply, but high bill to pay for it. What if your pipes/infrastructure sucked and you were constantly repairing lines, your bill would refelct this but your supply could be just fine. You could also have an ample supply of water, but the quality is poor and therefore the cost to treat it is high. You also can't compare a city like Houston to a small town either, the economies of scale work in a large city's favor.

Where are these greener pastures, just about every place in the whole country that is growing, is in the more arid parts of the country, besides Houston that is..

I don't know, that is there problem. Maybe that will eventually cause a shift back to the Midwest/great lakes cities...

[HtownLove]

Houston has the better road layout
The better water supply
But most importantly the better job market

Port expansions, global trade, health care, manufacturing and alternative energy gives Houston a promising future.

Having corporate relocations, and a large service industry doesn't seem like something to look forward to to me.

[majicdonjuan]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

I understand that but current water prices are a pretty good indicator of the present supply of water, don't you think? I know you are looking at the big picture but sometimes a snapshot can go along way to telling the story.....or are we subsidizing water use in this state?

It's not that we're necessarily subsidizing water in the state, it's that (as another poster pointed out), water is chronically undervalued compared to it's true importance in the context of a modern economy. Think of it kind of like oil - it was once priced very low, then it skyrocketed, in a fairly short timeframe, for a variety of reasons. The major one is the threat of eventual worldwide resource exhaustion. Water can be expected to follow the same track at some point, albeit moreso because of a threat of localized resource exhaustion.

[majicdonjuan]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

Houston has the better road layout
The better water supply
But most importantly the better job market

Port expansions, global trade, health care, manufacturing and alternative energy gives Houston a promising future.

Having corporate relocations, and a large service industry doesn't seem like something to look forward to to me.

This, to me, is the second major factor after water. I truly don't know which metro area is better positioned moving forward. Houston has the more dynamic and powerful economic drivers, but there is a lot to be said about the resiliency and stability shown by DFW's more diverse economy.

My opinion is that DFW, as a more stable economy, will likely continue to grow briskly and predictably, as it has for the last 60 years or so. I think the Greater Houston area has a higher ceiling economically and could overtake DFW in terms of population (it already has in terms of per capita wealth) but also could suffer if its main economic drivers suffer. Luckily for the Houston area, it has diversified enough that unlike past busts, I don't think a major down cycle in any one of the area's primary sectors would be enough to really sink the economy by itself.

Going forward I think:

DFW = steady fast-paced growth
Houston = less consistent but likely higher overall growth

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by majicdonjuan

This, to me, is the second major factor after water. I truly don't know which metro area is better positioned moving forward. Houston has the more dynamic and powerful economic drivers, but there is a lot to be said about the resiliency and stability shown by DFW's more diverse economy.

My opinion is that DFW, as a more stable economy, will likely continue to grow briskly and predictably, as it has for the last 60 years or so. I think the Greater Houston area has a higher ceiling economically and could overtake DFW in terms of population (it already has in terms of per capita wealth) but also could suffer if its main economic drivers suffer. Luckily for the Houston area, it has diversified enough that unlike past busts, I don't think a major down cycle in any one of the area's primary sectors would be enough to really sink the economy by itself.

Going forward I think:

DFW = steady fast-paced growth
Houston = less consistent but likely higher overall growth

Yeah, if you look at the metro areas population in the last 25 years it had not been consistent with Houston in the lead, losing it, retaking it, losing it, etc.

I think it is because Houston had had these major drivers that gives them huge population boosts.

Dallas job market is dependent on population growth, which is dependent on job market, which is dependent on population growth.

Houstons job market is not dependent on the growth of its population. In fact, Houston is lagging in keeping up with its job potential. The chemical industry, oil and gas medical industries are not yet being exploited to their fullest. Investment in these will create an even rosier job market. Lets not forget globalization, and trade. Read that Houstons port activity growth was the strongest last year. There is lots to exploit with the panama canal expansion and the blossoming economies of mexico and South america.

In the end, Houston is the one better prepared to provide jobs, and thus it is better prepared for the future.

Houston and LA can cripple DFW if they start handling more and more of their processing and distrubution. DFW is highky dependent on these two sending them goods from their ports.. Kinda like how they were dependent on FW for sending them cattle to stay alive back in the day.

Come to think if it Dallas has always been dependent on other cities sending goods. They were dependent on San Antonio and Houston also for sending them cotton back in the day

[HtownLove]

I think San Antonio has a good shot at the next couple of years too.

And we are sleeping on the Valley. It is growing fast too.

McAllen is gonna have a big metro soon.. The international metro area of McAllen-Renosa has 1.8 Million people which is already about the size of Austin.