Are Texas DPS checkpoints Justifiable?

The Texas DPS is now conducting roadblocks in certain areas to keep our streets safe and in compliance. Although they are conducting roadblocks to check that you are in compliance with regulatory traffic statutes (Valid license, insurance, and vehicle registration, etc) could there be more to that than what meets the eye?

I found an article interesting in which it stated that the Texas DPS is conducting roadblocks not just to check for compliance with regulatory traffic statutes, but to also check for evidence of DWI, as well as running warrant checks on drivers. In an article titled "Show me your papers, comrade': DPS vehicle checkpoints further degrade Fourth Amendment" posted on October 2, on the Texas Political blog Grits For Breakfast. The author of this article goes on to reply to a column that was posted by DPS Col. Steve McCraw in the McAllen Monitor. In McCraw's column, he goes on to state that although these stops check for a license, insurance, etc. That a warrant check and the authority to address obvious criminal violations could be conducted! Although his justification to this relied on various criminal activity in that area and many citations of no drivers license and insurance, The author of Grits does not agree with him.

Furthermore, Grits goes on to say that although it is not certain if these stops could result in immigration detention, that these DPS checkpoints are more so degrading than anything else and violate the Fourth Amendment. He goes on to state that in his youth, checkpoints like these could be associated with that of a "totalitarian communist"state. Although he did call out McCraw's column for using contradictory court cases such as the Supreme Court Case(City of Indianapolis v. Edmond) in which they ruled against checkpoints, I felt he couldn't convince the audience well enough. Grit's article was aimed to persuade the citizens of this state of how unlawful these DPS checkpoints are. Although that is what he aimed to persuade, he failed to do so in my opinion.

Grit's tried to state many times how McCraw just relies on excuses but after reading this article, he doesn't do much to support his argument. He relies mostly on his feelings of how it's just wrong to do this, how he remembers in his childhood, some court examples, and etc. Although the article seemed to start on the right foot, it ended up going downhill for me and I did not agree with what Grit's had to say. Even though I could see where Grit's was coming from, that it is wrong to do more than just check for a valid license and registration. I could see that McCraw was looking out for the safety of the people. I for one have witnessed bad driving on my way to school and find it good to do these stops and check that people are not intoxicated in order to protect public safety. If I am not mistaken as well, earlier this year, the Cafeteria lady of this Northridge Campus was killed by a drunk driver. That furthermore proves that these DPS checks should check all that they can in order to ensure everyone's safety!

To sum it all up, Grits was making a good story by letting us know what the opposing side was saying but ended up failing in convincing the audience. Had he relied more on examples of how it is not justifiable instead of on his feelings and childhood memories, he could have been able to persuade the citizens and readers that it is not right to allow these DPS checkpoints to do more than just check for regulatory traffic statutes!

Does Texas need this Reservoir?

Could allowing to permit one reservoir to be built, be the key for Texas to building more reservoirs as part of the Texas 50-year water plan? An editorial in The Dallas News believes so!

On Friday, September 20, 2013 The Dallas News published an editorial titled North Texas needs Lake Ralph Hall.  The article goes on to state that the following Tuesday, an important decision for North Texas would be made that would set a precedent for all of the state. The author of this article who was not named, seeks to persuade the citizens, as well as the state, as to why the proposed Lake Ralph Hall is needed by North Texans. Furthermore, the author does a great job of covering the issues at hands. The article goes on to say that the Denton county is planned on exceeding it's population from 2010, which consisted of a population of about 663,000 to 1 million in 2030 and 1.84 million by 2060. With the current water supplies and increase in population, water supplies are enough to meet the needs for about the middle of the next decade and not beyond, according to the district's executive director Tom Taylor.

Additionally, the article goes on to say that this is the part where Lake Ralph Hall would come into play because if a permit were to be issued for Lake Ralph Hall, it would help the fast-growing region meet its water demands. However, the article states that if the TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) refuses the construction permit, that the rejection could cause effects way beyond the Denton and Dallas counties. Since the state has not issued a permit for a new lake in about 25 years, it is crucial for this permit to be accepted. Furthermore, the article states if the state cannot issue a permit for a lake such as Ralph Hall then that pretty much forecasts that not much good will come for Texas' ability to building other reservoirs as part of the 50-year water plan.

For the most part I agreed with what the author wrote and felt he provided a good amount of data to back up his claims as to why North Texas needs the TCEQ to allow the permit for Lake Ralph Hall. Although I think it was a bit far-fetched to say that if this one lake was not permitted that it pretty much forecasted what was in store for Texas' ability to build other reservoirs. Additionally, the author did address that strategies were in place that included a healthy reliance on water conservation. I however, would have liked the author to have addressed what type of water conservation plans are already in place and would like to have seen some data on it but nonetheless, the article was presented well, had convincing arguments, and information to further back up their argument and convince the audience.