Public takes aim at water authority

Speakers allege lack of transparency from SRBA; member warns releasing data early is dangerous

MOUNT PLEASANT, Texas— Sulphur River Basin Authority’s perceived lack of transparency and open meetings law became the common themes Tuesday as members of the community weighed in during public comment, and a representative of the state’s Sunset Advisory Commission told board members SRBA’s efficiency would be reviewed in the coming months.

“First of all, this basin study was somewhat window dressing for us, that’s basically been our involvement,” said Fred Milton from New Boston, Texas, who sits on the Riverbend Water Resources District board. “When we have asked about information on that process, we have basically been told ‘no, hell no,’ and it has been implied that we could not (get information) without paying.”

Those who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting live in the Region D water-planning area. Region D, which includes Texarkana, is made up of 19 counties in Northeast Texas and is mostly rural. Region C is made up of 16 counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and is mostly urban.

Texarkana, Texas, City Manager John Whitson told the board he did not see an improvement in transparency since attending an SRBA meeting two years ago. Whitson said he had previously suggested adding

attachments to the board’s agenda on their Website, making the information easy to find, and that remained his suggestion.

“That way, people are not coming over here with attitude, as I’m sure it’s perceived,” Whitson said.

Redwater, Texas, Mayor Robert Lorance told the board Riverbend Water Resources District has basically been put on the sidelines as SRBA continues with a basinwide study and that he thought they were going into the study without required objectivity.

“You all are not interested in getting the data clinically; you are looking for a result, and that result is Marvin Nichols (Reservoir) at any cost,” he said. “I am asking for you to allow the local sponsor for Wright Patman (Lake) to be Riverbend and Texarkana.”

Steve Mayo, Texarkana’s city-appointed water liaison, told the audience that SRBA recently issued a press release in which its board president, Mike Russell, publicly offered to assist the city of Texarkana in any way.

Mayo waited 3.5 hours to address board members at last month’s meeting to ask for the board’s support of Texarkana, Texas, and Riverbend remaining the local sponsors of any current or future water developed out of Wright Patman Lake. Mayo said he never heard back from Russell but did hear back from Borden Bell, an SRBA board member.

Mayo said he followed up with his local SRBA representative and talked with SRBA attorney Kirk Patton.

“I was told by the SRBA attorney that due to SRBA’s current contractual obligations with the (Dallas-Fort Worth) Metroplex, they were not in a position to support a resolution supporting Texarkana and Riverbend Water Resources remaining as local sponsors of Wright Patman Lake,” Mayo said. “I am here today to ask the item to be placed on your next agenda so that a full and public debate can occur on this important matter.”

Gary Cheatwood, a longtime Red River County resident who frequents the board meetings, said he is opposed to the creation of the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir because the water would surround his property on three sides and there would be “no way out.” Cheatwood said he did not appreciate the board’s lack of transparency and unwillingness to be more open with those who attend meetings.

“You sit up there and discuss studies and reports that none of us have a copy of,” Cheatwood said. “Those of us who are impacted in this region have the right to be involved. It seems the goal of the SRBA is to build the Marvin Nichols Reservoir and not to protect our region.” Kirby Hollingsworth, who has served on the SRBA board for six years, said those talking about SRBA taking water rights away are incorrect. “That is totally unfounded. It is an unfair accusation and requires more than allegations,” Hollingsworth said. “We are trying not to have allegiances to anyone. People want water, and they come to us and ask—what are we going to say? We are the people trying to get the facts. We are the legitimate gatherer of facts, and I question the ethics of those who don’t want us to get the facts.”

Hollingsworth said members of the board do not want to hurt industry in the region and have complex studies done to evaluate the information about what is the next best action to take. These studies are comprehensive and should not be shared until complete, he said.

“I 100 percent agree that we need to do all we can do with transparency, but when these studies have new information that undermines the old information, if we release that prematurely, that gives a false impression to people,” he said.

According to Hollingsworth, the millions of dollars invested by Region C entities—which are in the Metroplex—are important to the completion of studies that will show the board the best options for the future.

“Does Texarkana want to pay for it?” Hollingsworth asked. “We are happy to do something for anyone who wants to pay for it.”

Linda Price, chairwoman of the Region D water planning board, told SRBA members she took issue with the methods and process of the basinwide study. Although Texas Water Development Board encouraged Regions C and D to continue to participate in the Sulphur River Basin Study, Price said Region D has not been afforded that opportunity.

“By making that statement, I assume the TWDB felt that Region D board was being allowed to participate, but that is not the case and never has been,” said Price, a safety director for Ward Timber. “After that order (by the water board), I sent requests to SRBA asking that our planning group participate in the basinwide study. All such requests have been rejected.”

Marshall Wood, who serves on the Riverbend board, told SRBA board members that he was denied a copy of a funding agreement and thought that was a violation of public record standards because everyone in the region should have access to SRBA’s information, as they might like to review and discuss that information.

“It appears to everyone that SRBA has lost its independence nearly 2 1/2 years ago,” Wood said. “Nothing has changed. I have a question about the operation of your business.”

Wood said it appears SRBA has contact with certain entities and not others.

“We want to sit down and feel like we are plugged in and not on the sidelines,” Wood said.

During the meeting, Russell was criticized by other board members for not allowing for their input before sending a Sept. 1 letter to the Texas Water Development Board asking the board’s general counsel Les Trobman to designate SRBA as a Wholesale Water Provider.

Russell told the board he was in a hurry to send the letter to assist Region C in the inter-regional conflict. “No one has discussed anything with me about the WWP,” said Patrica Wommack, SRBA board member. “When you sign off on these (letters), it gives the impression the board signed off on it, but we had not discussed it whatsoever.” Wommack expressed concern about another item on the agenda she said was not clear to her. She voted against a “revised yield study” because she said she was not sure if she had been given the correct information about what was being voted on.

Bell described still feeling “burned about this,” regarding the letter’s being sent without board discussion or approval.

“I am asking it not be done without you coming to us first,” Bell said to Russell.

After the meeting, Russell said asking for the WWP status was just a technicality. He said the people of Texarkana reacted to the information negatively, and the board had not committed to do anything at all.

“We are not the Corps of Engineers. If and when the corps raised the water rights in 10 to 15 years is about as much time as it would take to build a reservoir,” Russell said. Russell said an email of the letter was sent out to all board members, but he speculated that some of them had not opened the mail. He said he was unsure about future ramifications of following open meetings law, but he said the board would look at it carefully. “Until the board has approved (an item) or disapproved it, it’s not a public item,” Russell said.

Russell said the public is welcome to go to SRBA and receive copies of approved items, but they will have to pay for the production cost of putting the report together.

SRBA is undergoing a sunset review, which came about after Bill 523 passed this legislative session. The sunset review gives the state a method to review the effectiveness of boards like SRBA and ultimately decide whether the board is effective enough to remain in existence. Sarah Kirkle, review director with the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission in Austin, told the members that SRBA and three other small river basin authorities are being reviewed.

Kirkle said she and commission members will talk to stakeholders confidentially until March, then issue a report in May recommending solutions to problems found.

At that point, people will have the option to comment and review comments on the agency’s Website at sunset.texas.gov.

“This is not a ‘gotcha’ process; it’s not a sneak attack,” Kirkle said. “We want everyone to be open with concerns. We want this to be transparent.”

Gabe Tarr, who serves on TexAmericas Center Board of Directors, told the SRBA board he had gotten a copy of the SRBA self-evaluation form for their sunset review, as well as copies of the advanced funding agreement between the Metroplex water entities and SRBA. He voiced concern about agencies listed in the documents, as who serves on them is unclear. “These documents list all kinds of shell entities like the Sulphur River Basin Group PLLC, John Lark Inc., the JCPD. I would like to know who exactly comprises each of these entities and what role they play in the decision-making process and execution of the agreements with the SRBA,” Tarr said. “We have no information about who they are, and with respect to the JCPD, when and where they meet. Are these meetings open to the public? I’m asking for a full disclosure on each entity by the next meeting. If I don’t get it, I will file a (Freedom of Information Act) request and get it that way.”