Mr. Bush’s Texas is the most polluted state in the union. It is an environmental disaster zone. Last year Houston surpassed Los Angeles as the smoggiest city in the US. Texas as a whole had more smog alerts in 1999 than any other state. Texas ranked ahead of all states in the discharge of recognized carcinogens into the air. It leads the nation in the number of factories violating clean-water standards. It leads the nation in the injection of toxic waste into underground wells. And on and on.

Then Herbert quoted the Sierra Club, saying, “Texas ranks first in toxic releases to the environment, first in total toxic air emissions from industrial facilities, first in toxic chemical accidents, and first in cancer-causing pollution.”

A few days earlier, Mark Z. Barabak, also writing for the Times, reported on the Governor’s proposal for an overhaul of federal environmental laws, and he also paraded some Texas problems: “Last summer, Houston supplanted Los Angeles as the nation’s smog capital. In addition, Texas ranks 46th among states for water-resources protection and 44th in per capita spending on environmental programs.”

Recently, we have been seeing a lot of these numbers, Texas in the low 40s in everything good and number one in everything bad. And we’re going to see a lot more of that before this election is over. Whether it’s the environment, education, transit, parks, whatever, Texas is going to take a pretty big hit in the media, and this will all be painful.

When I moved to Texas as a boy, I was thrilled by it all, but within a few weeks of my arrival I saw a knife fight outside school, and I suddenly realized I wasn’t in Kansas (actually, Massachusetts) any more. I’m not sure when I first became cognizant of this 47th and 50th syndrome, but I’ve been hearing that sort of thing for decades. We all have. And the wonder of it is, by and large most people aren’t embarrassed by this status, because somehow Texas as a myth is so intriguing and fanciful that the details don’t seem to matter.

But out there in America and even in the world, this is beginning to have serious consequences beyond the health of the people who are already affected. Houston is suffering as a competitive player in the emerging new economy because smart young people view the region as having a declining quality of life. Our high-tech companies are having difficulty attracting the best young college graduates, and they’re even losing some of their current employees for this reason. The city has been removed from the site consultants’ list of preferred regions for relocating and expanding corporate facilities.

We can’t just blame politicians, because we elect them, and we can’t just blame business, because we buy all that stuff. I suppose we could say that our brains are addled by the water and air, and so we just can’t be smart or make good decisions. So long as public officials engaged in efforts to clean the air, or save energy, purchase gas-guzzling high-emission SUVs for themselves, and so long as METRO phases out natural gas buses and prepares, instead, to buy a whole new passel of diesel buses, it’s hard for an ordinary citizen to get a fix on whether or not we really have an air pollution problem.

We need some good numbers. Many communities over the last few years have prepared lists of indicators of community health, and these numbers are revisited annually. The idea is to develop a list that’s close to value-free so that a broad group of people can sign on to its meaning. The three counties around Austin have done a particularly good job of this, and have published their first set of numbers.

In the Centex indicators, each measure has an “Ideal State.” Many of these are probably not achievable, but are ideal. For example, the Ideal State under Civic Engagement is: “All Central Texans are engaged in their communities and participate in the civic process.” Success is measured by “the number of votes cast as a percentage of the total number of votes that could have been cast by registered voters in local elections.”

Under Air Quality, the Ideal State is: “Central Texas residents are not exposed to levels of air pollutants that are hazardous to their health or their environment.” The measure is “the number of days local air quality fails to meet national, health-based standards for ozone.” That gives an incomplete picture, because it doesn’t cover small particulates or air toxics, but it’s still a way progress – or regress – can be charted (and indeed is charted in our region).

Many of these indicators are measured by one body or another, but rarely all in one place and over a long period of time. In the Houston Gulf Coast Smart Growth Initiative, we have established a “state of condition” committee to look at ways of documenting where we are right now. The Austin indicators are self-competitive, that is, they are only about the Austin counties. Our committee is suggesting that Houston’s should also be nationally competitive, to judge ourselves against others as well as against our own record.

In any event, while we are sure to fall further down some lists in the next few years, there is a lot we can do to start improving our region, and perhaps some sort of report card is appropriate.

David Crossley is president of the Gulf Coast Institute, immediate past president of CEC, and a current member of the CEC board of directors.