Dr. Jane Morris' notes were originally transcribed by Dr. James Presley, who sent me photocopies which I, in turn, have transcribed again for purposes of the Internet. If Jane had not by pure chance attended this meeting in Mount Vernon "like a fly on the wall", almost a year ago to the day, this lake might truly have become a "done deal" by now.

Since Adobe PageMill, my program for webpage construction, can't seem to understand indentations, I am going to modify the transcription by Dr. James Presley to substitute [...] for an indentation, and add more line spacings. Also, I'll be making a few "proofreader" type of stylistic corrections. Other than that, I am making no substantive changes in Dr. Presley's transcription of Dr. Morris' notes. Roberto

*****

SUMMARY NOTES OF THE MEETING

Permits Include:

(1) Water rights permit - dam, interbasin transfer, and water rights

(2) Environmental Permits
... Section 404 - Approval by the Army Corps of Engineers
... Section 401 - Water Quality Certification
... Section 106 - ?
... Antiquities Permit - For cultural resources, such as archeological sites for Indian artifacts, or sites designated by the Historical Commission
... Sand and Gravel Permit

(3) NEPA Environmental Impact Study
... This includes threatened and endangered Species (a reference to Section 7) and bottomland hardwoods. (The Sabine may be used for mitigation.)
... Also a comment that TNRCC does State Water Right Permit and SBG knows them and "how to open doors and keep things moving"

Challenges To Permit Approval:

(1) Archeology - Cultural Resources

(2) Instream Flow - This is an important issue with the Army Corps of Engineers.

(3) Environmental - Wetlands, hardwoods, threatened and endangered species

(4) Political - Shipping water to DFW, Senate opposition to this

(5) Local - "Not on my land" (loss of multigenerational family farms)

Legislative Concerns:
... Carter and Burgiss said they would: (1) Assist with permits; (2) "Designate Site as one of unique value for construction of the reservoir" (See CB folio, page 9.); (3) Generate state funding (This is not available now.)
... SBG said they were very fortunate to have "Governor" Ratliff in place (they called him that) because he will help. He will shorten permit time.

Funding - Various Statements Regarding This Follow:

... State funding must be generated - it is not now available [from] CB. Funding and alliances must be built in the legislature.
... CB also said funding will come from these sources: (1) Capital funding (debt - I think this means bond sales.); (2) Texas Water Development Board (funding since 1966?); (3) USACE - Army Corps of Engineers (There was a comment that they are "a double­edged sword - they have deep pockets but it takes time.")
... Other Notes: CB said they would work with TWDB for bonding the program. Also, CB said State of Texas will put together Water Quality Package. Also, CB said something about the marketing of bonds.

Public Relations:

... A Citizens Advisory Group should be formed with PR and legal support. This group will be appointed by SRBA. This group will be assisted with community and government support to reduce and respond to potential protests.
... The SRBA will have to be proactive in a community campaign - get an Internet website. Robert H. Murray of SBG scanned the Internet this morning and said "they already are out there".
... Also, you need an early land­acquisition program. The current reservoir program doesn't have enormous opposition, perhaps a lawsuit and things like that, and that will shave time off the acquisition process.
... Address land­acquisition early and keep parties from getting land they want and fighting us as a land­owner (in lawsuits). Most successful lawsuits have been in federal courts ­ not state ­ they have been early on.
...Get started on the web swiftly before your opponents get there. You've got to focus your energies on permitting. Environmentalists will be your major opponents because it's easiest to oppose from that aspect.
... A letter of support goes a long way - even further, a phone call.
... Can't do it (reservoir) without community support.
... There will be challenges from National Groups like the Sierra Club and National Wildlife Federation.

Selling Points Are:

... Meet water needs of (1) Northeast Texas, (2) DFW Area.
... Provide economic development for industry, recreation, real estate (especially real estate).
... Also can sell excess water - It is a renewable resource - it comes back.

Comments:

Bucher, Willis and Ratliff is the Mt. Pleasant firm of Bill Ratliff. (Note earlier comments about political support.) Also, BW&R worked with NETRWPG [North East Texas Region Water Planning Group].

One property­owner owns 25% of the under­lake area. CB said dealing with one owner may be easier to do. Need to develop available cash flow for big acquisition.

The Chair talked about "stakeholders" (nine stakeholders) helping to finance things. Said the consulting firms would have to be able to work with the stakeholders. There are several pages that refer to the stakeholders as funding sources, p. 20 & 21 of my notes.

The most important thing said was that in the experience of SBG with the Corps of Engineers, nine (9) of the last permits from the Fort Worth office came through Freese and Nichols. They have a man named Ron Lemmon who, I think, used to be in the Corps. He knows how to get things through - either by efficiency in the process or by knowing Corps people, or both.

The Nichols of Freese and Nichols is the son of Marvin Nichols who was the first Chairman of the Texas Water Development Board. Mr. Nichols (the son) is a charming white­haired gentleman who is difficult not to like. He gave the SRBA a framed copy of the resolution to name the reservoir after his father.

There are 2 portions of Marvin Nichols Reservoir. The upper portion has fewer hardwoods but more relocations. Region D & Region C (DFW) have agreed to the lower portion & fewer relocations.

The permitting process can take 13 years but SBG said it can take 5 years off that.

I have a summary of the rating used to select the chosen firm.

The SBG have worked with the NETRWPG.

There are notes to share with you (p. 17, 18, 19) regarding connections of the SBG with the SRBA and ways the SBG helped the SRBA. I also have comments about the "stakeholders" and their inter­relationship in funding SRBA.

Agencies Involved In The Project:
... USACE (The Corps of Engineers)
... Texas Parks and Wildlife
... U.S. Fish and Wildlife
... Texas Historical Commission
... TNRCC
... Texas Water Development Board

DETAILED NOTES OF THE MEETING

The first order of business at the SRBA Board Meeting was engineering firm presentations. A copy of the letter sent to the engineering firms was distributed. The firms were told they could bring seven representatives and that they could not contact local members individually.

The firms of Carter and Burgess (CB) presented first. Phil Deaton, P.I., of Dallas, Principal in Charge, reviewed reservoirs and water projects of note involving the CB "team". [These included Lake Bob Sandlin and Cooper Lake (see presentation folio, p. 1).]

He talked about the CB team strong­points, including "How to Accelerate the Permitting Process" (see folio, p. 1). He introduced the independent consulting firms that make up the CB team. They include Brown and Root Services, Inc.; Bucher, Willis and Ratliff Corp.; and what I took to be a firm that deals with legal and PR matters called Potts and Reilly, L.L.P. (Mr. Reilly was present and spoke later as I have recorded further on.) (see folio, p. 2)

There followed charts of the cumulative CB team experience with dam projects which totaled 307 national and international and of staff size (see pages 2 and 3 respectively) and charts of staff diversity and of staff capability (areas receiving special interest were land­acquisition, relocation, project­development, particularly permitting, and dam design and construction). (follow folio)

Buddy Barnes, CB of Dallas, was introduced as the proposed overall manager. He talked about technical and administrative challenges (folio, p. 6). He emphasized political and environmental, and water rights, as major challenges.

Steve Veal then stated that key issues identified by the CB team were:
... Permits for water rights are: dam, water right, interbasin transfer
... Environmental permits are: Section 404 approved by Army Corps of Engineers; Section 401 Water Quality Certification; Section 106; Antiquities Permit (Note: Archeological and Historical Sites); Land and Gravel Permit (Note: This was not discussed.)
...NEPA Environmental Impact Statement; and said, "Problems come with involving the public." (These are on folio, p. 8.)

As part of their Strategic Permitting Approach, they will focus on 6 areas (p. 8), including building "Community and Government Support to resist Outside Opposing Interests"; and they will build alliances and funding in the legislature.

Potts and Reilly of Austin (Mr. Reilly spoke): [These are Susan Potts and Frank Reilly. R.]
... Will develop community support. They have done this successfully with water projects in Stephenville and San Antonio. (Note: Perhaps need to know more about them.)
... "Can't do it without community support."
... "Citizen Advisory Committee to be provided with PR and legal support" (and this will be appointed by SRBA).
... "Get legislative support at state level and with congressional representatives.
... Identify key opponents - environmental programs will have opponents in legislature.
... Assist with permits.
... Designate Site as one of Unique Value for construction of the reservoir (p. 9) (Note: Need to know something about this.)
... Generate state­funding (this part is not available).
... They will assist Advisory Committee with Community and Government support to reduce and respond to potential problems.

Jess Taylor, Brown and Root of Dallas:
... Discussed Allens Creek Reservoir (which the CB team worked on) in Austin, which before Marvin Nichols was the largest reservoir in Texas. (Apparently the permit was received in record time.)
... Mr. Taylor said: Permitting drives the project (and determines) how big it is and its costs. The design is negotiated.
... Working relationships and timing are key.
... (They) know how to work water­rights issues around the state.
... TNRCC and other people around the state can make those work for Marvin Nichols.
... TNRCC focuses on water quantity (not other things). "TNRCC will help us get this."

Strategic Permit Approval (see p. 11):
... On Allen Creek they negotiated out to the federal process. (?)
... Continue Balance of Permitting, EIS (Corps of Engineers - what does the folio mean "likely sponsors"?)
... Section 404
... Section 401 Water Quality Certification
... Cultural Resources
... Sand and Gravel Permit
... Threatened and Endangered Species (Note: Section 7 is referred to; what is that?)
... Bottomland Hardwood (Sabine likely source for mitigation)

Wendall (Buddy) Barnes said: They have completed a bunch of Environmental Impact Studies.
... Financing (see p. 12)
... Funding: (1) Capital funding (debt) (Note: I think this means bond sales.); (2) Texas Water Development Board (1966); USACE participation (This is the Corps of Engineers.)

A list of their consultant resources are presented. (Note: This is a list of information sources, p. 14.)
.... USAC, Texas Parks & Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Historical Commission, Texas DOT, Texas Water Development Partnership Sources (see p. 14).

Dave Rogers, PE, CEG Dam Design Project Manager, talked about dam issues. He said foundation, soil, ground­water and hydrostatic features were concerns. He told me after the presentation that all construction issues can be addressed - the problems in the projects come during the permit process. There is a 30­year window (on completion), 20­30 years. One property­owner owns 25% of underlake land. Dealing with one owner may be easier to do. Need to develop available cash flow for big acquisition.

Discussion At End:

Potts and Reilly will stress PR.
Regarding bonding process, CB team will work with TWDB for bonding for the program.
The Corps (of Engineers) is a double­edged sword; they have deep pockets but it takes time.
Regarding bonds - Key in making bonds easy to sell is that you have a plan to sell them.
State of Texas will put together Water Quality Package. (?)

Key Environmental Issues To Take Note Of:
(1) Archeology
(2) In­stream Flow. Mr. Taylor of Brown & Root addressed this with experiences in the Allen Creek Reservoir in Austin - they developed a consensus planning for environmental flow that was found acceptable for statistical methods (see more on my notes).
(3) Wetlands
(4) Hardwoods

Mr. Reilly said Citizens Advisory Committee would take to church groups and others. The board would choose the Citizens Advisory Committee.

Mr. Chairman [Mike Huddleston] said to Mr. Barnes that they had nine stakeholders helping finance things. Tentative approval that these stakeholders will be able to work with [any] engineering firm they [want to] work with. (More on stakeholders on p. 21 of original notes.)

Comments After Presentations:

The dam designer Dave Rogers told me dam design problems are not insurmountable. The real problems are environmental and permitting.

After the firm left, there was general commentary, at which it was mentioned that Governor Perry did not veto Senate Bill #2.

The slim board member, Mr. Goodman, asked [board member] Judy Lee if the firm of Bucher, Willis & Ratliff was Bill Ratliff's firm, and she said yes.

Second Engineering Presentation:

Sulphur Basin Group (SBG, composed of Murray, Thomas & Griffin of Texarkana with Freese & Nichols): The team was introduced; they are pictured on p. 1 of the SBG folio. Then strengths were cited (i.e., Ron Lemmon has dam experience.). Not pictured but named was Barbara Nickerson, the Environmental Permit Specialist.

Discussion began with not of rapidly growing water needs of Northeast Texas and the DFW Metroplex. Note of economic development for industry, recreation, real estate (especially real estate).

Something about archeological mitigation.

Now is the right time for a reservoir project because of (1) drought in Texas and (2) political (?) concerns. (?)

The SBG will work with a bond­rating agency.

The Challenge:
... Controlling the schedule is the key challenge.
... Getting the permits: TNRCC­State Water Rights Permit; 404 Permit by Corps of Engineers.
... Controlling the time­schedule for these permits makes the difference.
... SBG knows TNRCC; they know what to do to open doors to keep things moving.
... Experience with Corps of Engineers; 9 of last 11 permits from the Fort Worth office came from them.

The opposition will use permitting process (p. 13):
(1) Environmental - bottom and hardwoods
(2) Political - shipping water to DFW (Senate opposition to things - they have already seen potential opportunity for this.)
(3) Local - "Not on my land"

SBG knows how to address regulatory agencies - knows what's important to them (see p. 14 - comments include additional points). Community relations campaign can be based on (1) Recreation; (2) Can sell excess water - it is a renewable resource - it comes back; and (3) Environmental opposition.

Sulphur Basin Group Solution:
... Proactive community campaign: Internet website (Bob Murray scanned the Internet this morning and said, "They already are 'out there'."); Public Information Campaign; Early land­acquisition program.
... Strong SRBA leadership.

Challenges:
(1) National opposition likely from Sierra Club and NWF.
(2) Decisions will be made locally. They have worked with the Corps of Engineers in Ft. Worth - 9 of 11 of the Section 404 permits approved by the Corps have been Freese & Nichols.

Solution:
(They are located where decisions will be made.)
They have permitted more 404 reservoir permits than any other agency in Texas. (Notes: Lemmon engineer that [sic] does a lot of work to make this a success.

Economic Development:
... Renewable Resource
... Provide for new industry, recreation, real estate - this will be a tremendous boon - the land side­development increases tax base.

Mr. Nichols, son of Marvin Nichols, gave a history of his father. (He was a most likable senior gentleman and spoke endearingly and most probably sincerely.) Mr. Nichols presented the SRBA a framed copy of the resolution naming the reservoir after his father.

Discussion:
... Big obstacles in permit process.
... They have to access the Web swiftly.
... Get started fast before your opponents get out there.
... You've got to focus your energies on permitting (something) will come out of the wood work.
... Environmentalists will be your major opponent because it is easier to oppose from that aspect.

Two Portions Of Marvin Nichols:
... The upper portion has less hardwood but more relocations.
... One of the first things you have to decide is [the] site, from one of the two sites.
... Region C and Region D have agreed to the location and that is good because such a decision can sometimes take a while.

The place for time­saving is in the permitting. It can take 13 years, but SBG can take 5 years off. They are very fortunate to have Governor Ratliff (they said they call him Governor) in place. He will help. Some national politicians will help, also. Don't rely on them because permitting process can (can't read this). A letter of support goes a long way - even further, a phone call.

The DFW area has a lot of influence.
Both these will shorten permit time.
Belief in drought cycle.
Senator Ratliff.

Don't have the enormous opposition, perhaps of lawsuit and things like that - will save time off. They might go to another area if they can't get this in time. (People will use disinformation and scare tactics.) The land­acquisition (addressed early) and keep parties from getting land they want and fighting us as a landowner (lawsuits). Most successful lawsuits have been in federal courts, not state (and these have been early on).

If the people in the basin don't want it, it will be hard to address down the road.

Pam Fry has gotten conservation projects through; she refers immediately to calls from the public. A newsletter is possible. They will assist in global mitigation. (?)

A lot of money will be spent on PR.

This concluded the presentation by SBG.

Comments By The SRBA:

Both firms did an adequate job. They (the Chair [Huddleston]) rated both firms. Asked about charges, Chair said you could get into that (they get 12 to 15% of the project); that is why you request proposals, not get bids. (Their fees are included in the funding.)

The Chair and Mike (Burke) presented a rating summary which they based on the prospectus folios. The ratings were as follows: [I am going to omit this comparison of point­by­point rating of the two firms, CB and SBG. Suffice it to say that SBG won out over CB by quite a difference. R.]

Comments & Discussion After Rating Review:

How much weight do we place on written proposals and how much did we put on oral? Mike responded, all on written proposal. Chair said SBG, because MTG has been our engineering firm for many years. They helped get matching funds (for a project with Red River County). Bad experience with CB. Water Board didn't like interpretation (apparently an accountability report) and CB had to resubmit and dragged their feet. MTG helped resolve this problem.

Chair said, "That was an ill feeling there," regarding CB in this experience. "Freese & Nichols has worked this since the beginning."

It will be easier for the Chair to work out of Texarkana, because MTG is in Texarkana.

Chair said, "Mike [Burke] and I went to Austin to see Don Peterson (Director) and Tommy Knowles (Ex­Director) to talk about (something)."

[Huddleston mumbles a lot at these meetings, disregarding the fact that every word that he utters ultimately is on the public record. At the May 21 meeting in Mount Pleasant, I scolded him for mumbling under his breath at his fellow board­members. Such secrecy and stealth on their part are both illegal and unacceptable. R.]

[Continuing]: "Freese & Nichols set this up. We got a presence there because of them." Chair quotation.

Confidential Comment: Chair [Huddleston] or Mike [Burke] said one of the important consultants for CB named Bandis (or something similar) was not there - was off for Father's Day and didn't care. (A disparaging comment was then made about this man's priorities in not attending the SRBA meeting.) A letter from an engineer named O. Ivey was received by the Chair. It was unsolicited. It praised F&N. The Chair passed around copies.

Comment on CB having 8 different firms - somebody has to be held responsible - easier to work with their group (SBG). They are here. CB has only the ETTL lab in Texarkana. (Note: Although it did seem they addressed increased Texarkana presence.)

MTG has a lady, Mrs. Pam Fry, who is the expert in the field of community involvement. (The Chair or Burke cited an observation of her competency.)

Reference again to California - how the residents refused to plan for their electrical need and so have problems now.

If the permit process can be kept [going] long enough, another site will be selected.

Comment on MTG's involvement with "Tommy, David and Walt". [These names refer to Tommy Knowles, David A. Williams (?) and Walt Sears (of Region D Water Board). R.]

The non­board member in attendance (from Mount Vernon or Mount Pleasant, NBM, said he is fielding questions from people where the footprint is going to be six times bigger than Lake Bob Sandlin). If you hadn't inconvenienced a handful of people, we would still be the same little town we were in 1970. (Mount Vernon or Mount Pleasant) We would not have a trailer manufacturer and others (he mentioned others).

Lakes Cypress Springs and Bob Sandlin came from bonds. "There are going to be a handful of people inconvenienced - you can't stop progress for a handful of people." (NBM)

Even if the people in Clarksville don't want it, DFS is going to build it. It's going to be built, and we need to do it now so we can control it.

Partnership income of $30,000 from Tommy, David and Walt.

Letter was circulated from Clean Rivers Program reviewing expenditures. Mike [Burke] had attributed 100% of his salaried time to this program, but they were accepting only 70%. "If we get it to where we don't have to do Clean Rivers, let's don't do it," the Chair quoted Mike as saying this. Chair said Mike was frustrated (among other things) by Clean Rivers. (Partnership may be to Clean Rivers.) Biggest portion of Mike's salary has been charged off to Clean Rivers.

$16,905 (?) from Clean Rivers.
$9,000 attorney fee for contacts - money for things in connection with the DFW area.
Thinks they (DFW) were waiting to see who would be elected engineers. They (in DFW) insinuated they could work better with F&N. (My [Jane or James?] comment: the SRBA seemed to be asking approval from DFW for our selective planning?)
Comment By Chair: CB gave a copy of the proposal they gave us to Tarrant County.
The Chair seemed to feel that this was offensive.

They (the SRBA) have an "alliance" in Dallas - invited the Chair to meet them at a meeting. Contract (?) change (charge?) in technical advisory committee. Tommy and David will have contract available to protect them.

Quality Report: Special study of Lake Write Patman (DAPT app.). They will be testing water (?). (Apparently this testing is part of Clean Rivers Program.)

Chair thanked member for their work on the board. Mr. Goodman said, "I don't know enough to give you any trouble," and everyone seemed politely amused at his comment.

The next meeting will be Monday, July 23 [2001], in the same location at 1:30 p.m.

Mike Huddleston, President, Texarkana
Mike Burke, Administrator, Texarkana
Dick Goodman, Clarksville
Judy Lee, Mount Pleasant
Charley Lowery, Mount Vernon
Patsy McClain (?)
Ms. Ford, Secretary (?)
Robert Parker, Paris
Tommy Spruill, Mount Pleasant