In looking at recent statements coming out of the Texas General Land Office, I am reminded of the old saying, "If a deal sounds too good to be true, then it probably is."

Texas this year became the No. 1 wind energy state, surpassing California.Such is the case when describing the land office's deal with wind generators. Backed by ratepayer subsidies, school district and county tax abatements and massive federal tax subsidies, Texans are being lured by the promise of these projects creating millions of dollars for public school children.

Unfortunately, these projects may only create hot air and rob our state of needed funds.

What has this agency negotiated that has me concerned? Specifically, I'm disturbed about the representations made regarding the newly announced Superior Renewable Energy wind generation project – apparently negotiated by the land office without so much as a bidding process.

This project, touted as "the biggest offshore wind farm in U.S. history," provides for the lease of 39,900 acres of submerged land off the coast of the Padre Island National Seashore to Superior Renewable Energy. The 500-megawatt wind generation facility will include between 100 and 250 40-story-tall turbine structures located two to eight miles offshore.

Proceeds are dedicated to the Permanent School Fund, which was established in 1854 to provide nontax funding to public schools to help offset local property taxes and protect schools from indebtedness.

On the surface, the Superior project sounds like a Texas-sized dream come true with its promise of clean, renewable energy and energy proceeds dedicated to schoolchildren.

A closer look at the numbers, however, reveals a dramatically different story.

Though few specifics about the economics have been released to the public, we have been told by the land office that the wind project will generate between $34 million and $112 million for the Permanent School Fund over the life of the project. Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson summed up the project's financial importance, stating: "We're not putting up one nickel, and we're getting clean energy right next to the grid and millions in royalties, so I'd say it's a good deal."

But that's hardly the whole story.

In reality, this project should generate for its investors about $2.46 billion over 20 years through the sale of power and Texas renewable energy credits, which are paid by Texas ratepayers. An additional $333 million in federal production tax credits will be added to the revenue stream, along with an anticipated county and school tax abatement (tax forgiveness) generally demanded by all wind project developers of between $125 million and $265 million, depending on the project cost.

With the project taking advantage of almost half a billion in tax abatements and credits (some directly out of school district funds and state school funds), lease royalties of only $34 million to $112 million to benefit the state education fund hardly add up to "a good deal."

Simply put, Texas public school children, and all Texas residents, will be harmed from a revenue standpoint if the Superior project is built.

Directly tapping one pool of taxpayer dollars through tax abatements to then funnel only a portion back to the school fund just does not create value. It is hard to believe that county and school district taxpayers and Texas utility ratepayers can be asked to accept a "best case" $112 million in lease revenue in exchange for their $500+ million tax credits and forgiveness to the wealthy investors as a "good deal."

Former President Harry Truman once joked, "If you can't convince them, confuse them." Painting a rosy picture of a bad deal after it has been struck is not the way any public agency should do business.

Is the Texas General Land Office's "good deal" too good to be true? When all the facts and numbers are understood, you bet it is.

Jack Hunt is president and CEO of the King Ranch Inc. His e-mail address is jhunt@king- ranch.com.