MOUNT PLEASANT, Texas -- More facts were given Tuesday to residents of the Sulphur River Basin on a watershed study.

Kevin Craig, who works in the Chief Plan Formulation Section with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said the watershed study is being done to determine means of reducing flood damage in the basin, restore ecosystem values and functions to sustainable and less degradable conditions, and to identify the optimal use of water in the basin.

Craig presented the history of the Corps, some recent water bills and, more importantly, the undertaking of the pending watershed study.

He said the process will consist of a reconnaissance study phase, which is 100 percent federally funded, a feasibility study, which is 50 percent federal, a pre-construction detailed design phase, a construction phase and operations phase.

The feasibility phase is conducted in different stages to see if the project is worth continuing.

In the feasibility phase, the scope first is determined by looking at existing conditions in the basin by studying environmental resources and economics.

There is also space for public involvement.

"We will conduct public workshops, public meetings," said Craig, noting that they want as much public input as possible to get the community's feel for the study.

There will also be an independent technical review and a feasibility scoping meeting with sponsors of the funding and higher water authorities to make sure "we're all on the same page," said Craig.

The second part of the feasibility phase is the plan formulation.

To determine the actual outcome of what the watershed study set out to do, Craig said "we will look at a variety of alternatives."

Craig said they are now completing a project management plan dealing with scope schedules, the budget and quality control plans. He said they will even have a communication plan to relay information back to the basin authority.

All of that has to be approved, he said, before getting a feasibility cost-sharing agreement.

Craig said this study is projected to take four to six years, and the basin authority pairing with the Corps allows for some leverage with local funds to "get more bang for your buck" in an important project such as this one.

"The Sulphur Basin is a key component in the state water plan," he said.

While they are not entirely sure of everything that will be studied at this point, Craig said the logjam on Highway 37 near Bogata will be studied as well as alternatives to optimal water use, including the Marvin Nichols Reservoir, a plan identified by the state and included in its state water plan in 2002 to address long-term water needs in the Dallas vicinity.

He said Marvin Nichols, along with other potential basins, has to be studied to make sure reallocating water from the basin to provide for water use is the optimal solution.

"The alternatives to reallocation have to be studied to determine if reallocation is the way to go," he said. "Whether there will be a new reservoir come out of this study, I don't know."

Many residents expressed concerns about stopping from Marvin Nichols. However, one resident, John McConnell from Bogata, wondered if the study could be scaled back to address just the logjam. He said the problem needs to be addressed immediately.

"We thought the Corps was going to come in and help us with the logjam," he said. "How much more devastation is going to occur?"

Craig said they initially did a reconnaissance study on the logjam, but felt it was necessary to do a more comprehensive study to include all other aspects of the basin. He said the state was very concerned with the logjam.

Craig's presentation will be available for viewing on the SRBA's Website sometime next week, at http://www.sulphurr.org/.

The SRBA will meet next at 1:30 p.m. June 15 in Mount Pleasant.

Attendees at the Sulphur River Basin Authority meeting on Tuesday heard new information on a basin wide feasibility study, with several alternatives outlined. Kevin Craig, chief of the plan formulation section for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Worth District, presented the board with the Corps' plans for a basin wide study.

He opened his presentation with background information on what has taken place at the federal level in regards to studies of the Sulphur River basin. He pointed to a 1999 reconnaissance study of the basin, in which Congress determined tht there was a federal interest in the basin. The Corps also found, at the time, no non-federal sponsor interested in paying for further study.

In 2001, SRBA began its own study on Marvin Nichols Reservoir to identify the optimal site for construction, economic impacts and preliminary design. Also in 2001, Congress provided 100 percent of funding for a Texas Water Allocation Assessment, which allowed for the Corps to perform studies to help the state in its future water plans. After some amount of study, the Corps determined that a watershed study of the Sulphur River basin would be of the most benefit.

"We need a more comprehensive approach to study of the basin," Craig said. "We want to look at flood control impact, the logjam, and future water supply in a holistic watershed approach."

The objectives of the watershed study are to reduce flood damage in the basin, restore ecosystem values and functions to a less degraded condition, and identify the optimal use of the water in the basin. The process will require a 100 percent federally funded reconnaissance study, followed by a feasibility phase that will be a 50/50 cost-share between the Corps and a non-federal entity. In November of 2003, the SRBA signed a letter of intent stating that they are interested in being a cost-sharing partner. Following certification notice received last week, Craig said that the Corps can now begin negotiations with SRBA on the cost of the feasibility study.

SRBA board member Jim Thompson asked what the projected cost is, and Craig said he could not answer because the Corps is still working to develop and refine the costs. "How much will be dedicated to the study of building new reservoirs?" Thompson asked. "There's no way to know because there will be a lot of data collection basin wide," Craig said. "It could be for new reservoirs or reallocation purposes or to address the logjam."

Craig indicated the study would take four to six years and would study the logjam and different alternatives for optimal water use in the basin. Once the feasibility phase is done, and the recommended plan is approved, preconstruction engineering and design followed by construction and operations phases will commence. "The next steps in our process now is to complete the project management plan we're currently working on," Craig said. "It includes the scope of the project, the schedule, budget, quality control plan, communications plan and change management plan."

Once completed, the Corps will execute a feasibility cost-sharing agreement with SRBA and initiate the study. "The Sulphur basin is absolutely a key component in the state water plan," Craig said. "This watershed study approach allows for comprehensive, holistic analysis of the alterntives to meet multiple objectives. With SRBA working with the Corps, it allows you to leverage more of your funds to get more bang for your buck."

Audience members expressed concern that the feasibility study would only add support to construction of Marvin Nichols. Craig noted that the feasibility study is not a continuation of SRBA's study, but he would not predict the future of the reservoir. "Whether there will be a new reservoir to come out of the study or not, I don't know," he said. "We will come up with a plan that is the most economical, most environmentally beneficial way to use water in the basin."

Red River [County] resident John McConnell also wondered why the study wasn't concentrating excusively on the logjam. "Can the study be scaled back just to take care of the river and restoring the flow and minimizing the damage from the overflooding?" McConnell asked. "The initial reconnaissance study was primarily for the logjam," Craig said. "Now, because of all the other issues in the basin, we and the non-federal sponsor [SRBA] feel much more study is necessary."

Following the meeting, I wanted to read this prepared statement. However, the meeting adjourned so unexpectedly quickly, I had no chance to do so. However, I handed my copy of this statement to board member Jim Thompson of Atlanta. R.

Good afternoon to everyone. I am Robert Russell of Mount Pleasant, opponent of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir project. I am also the webmaster of SulphurRiver.Net, which I invite all of you, especially the new board-members, to visit. This website contains valuable archival information about the SRBA and the on-going Marvin Nichols Reservoir controversy, as well as numerous photographs, from the past three years.

I would like to read the following brief statement, if I may.

First of all, prior to the start of this meeting, I submitted to board-member Jim Thompson an Open Letter to the Sulphur River Basin Authority. I requested that Mr. Thompson distribute copies to all of you. Extra copies of this letter have been made available to the public. Since it is fairly self-explanatory, I'll not waste any time summarizing it now. However, I do wish to emphasize that I think that my questions are important enough to demand clear and concise legal answers.

Since your April meeting, you changed today's meeting time from 10:30 AM to 1:30 PM. Even the Mount Pleasant Daily Tribune reported the incorrect morning hour in Monday's edition. And only yesterday was it called to the attention of me and others that by changing the hour of today's meeting, you made it conflict with the organizational meeting in New Boston of Wake Village Mayor Mike Huddleston's Wright Patman Regional Water Supply Agency, which meeting is being held right now, simultaneously with this one. This is highly suspicious behavior; and if this is a devious administrative attempt to "divide and conquer", preventing some of us, including the newspapers, from attending both meetings, then I am here to tell you that such a strategy is blatantly transparent to us all, and it is doomed to failure. I am emphasizing this scheduling anomaly in light of the "conflict of interest" questions in the letter which I have submitted to your board.

Secondly, by this time next month, I'll have an aerial videotape of the Sulphur River from Cooper Lake to the Roberts Cemetery at Dalby, just north of the proposed dam site for the Marvin Nichols Reservoir, including the Highway 37 logjam and other logjams along the river. Incidentally, this videotape will cost only a couple of hundred dollars to obtain. I daresay that if, as a governmental body, you were to contract for such a service, you would be billed thousands of dollars by the usual, unscrupulous consulting firms. Our leaders have lost all common sense and squander millions of taxpayer dollars down self-serving ratholes from Washington, D.C., to Wake Village, Texas, whereas practical and reasonable local people can perform many of these same chores for considerably less.

The Mount Pleasant Civic Center has informed me that they have a VCR and television set available for use by any group that is meeting here. Thus, I request that at your June meeting, you have the Civic Center connect up their TV and VCR, allowing me to play this river-bottom videotape for board-members as well as public attendees. The videotape will be edited in advance and will not be terribly long and can be shown a second time, if need be, after your meeting has adjourned.

If there is one thing that all of us seem to agree upon, despite our differences on Marvin Nichols and other matters, we are united in our desire to see that these logjams are cleaned up and removed, so that the flow of the Sulphur River can more resemble its historical normality and, in the process, perhaps increase its supply of life-sustaining water into Lake Wright Patman, to the possible future benefit of both Northeast Texas and Dallas-Fort Worth.

I'll be glad to provide you with my written copy of this statement for the record, for your minutes.

Thank you.

Submitted By: Robert Russell
18 May 2004
Mount Pleasant Civic Center

Mount Pleasant, Texas 75455
http://www.sulphurriver.net/
18 May 2004

OPEN LETTER TO: Sulphur River Basin Authority
Wake Village & Mount Pleasant, Texas

Dear Sulphur River Basin Authority:

Submitted herewith in this open letter is a request for the following item to be added to the agenda of your June or July 2004 meeting. You may wish to notify your Vinson & Elkins attorney, David Tuckfield of Austin, since he may need to be in attendance when this matter is legally clarified.

As you are certainly well aware from recent publicity in the Texarkana Gazette, there has been considerable public controversy over the formation of the new Wright Patman Regional Water Supply Agency, primarily as a result of the efforts by Wake Village Mayor Mike Huddleston, former President of the SRBA and member of the Region D water planning group. Attempts to establish this suspicious new water agency were initiated only after Mr. Huddleston was removed from both water boards. It now appears that attorney David Tuckfield represents both the SRBA and the Wright Patman Water Agency, as well as the "Seven Cities" in their water lawsuit against the City of Texarkana, discussion of which is prohibited by "gag order" imposed by District Judge Jimmy White of Mt. Pleasant. Is this a "conflict of interest" on the part of Mr. Tuckfield?

SRBA Executive Director Michael Burke, friend and erstwhile business partner of Mr. Huddleston, is also a city councilman and Mayor Pro-Tem of Wake Village. Mr. Burke voted along with Mr. Huddleston to establish the Wright Patman Water Agency. The question therefore inevitably arises if Mr. Burke, like this attorney, might have a "conflict of interest" regarding his involvement with both the SRBA and the Wright Patman Water Agency. And why does David Tuckfield, not even a local attorney, legally represent both of these water entities? Did Mr. Burke suggest to Mr. Huddleston that he, Huddleston, should hire David Tuckfield to represent the water agency? What is the relationship, if any, between the SRBA and the Wright Patman Water Agency?

And what is the relationship of both groups to the lesser known Red River Redevelopment Authority? Could you please explain any role of the Red River Redevelopment Authority (RRRA) as it may pertain to the Sulphur River Basin Authority? Are the SRBA and the Wright Patman Water Agency in any way connected with the RRRA? It seems that Mr. Huddleston is a member of the boards of both the Water Agency and the RRRA. Senate Bill 1955 establishing the RRRA was sponsored by former Senator Bill Ratliff of Mount Pleasant, a fervent supporter of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir project, and passed by the Texas Legislature in March of 2003. Will any attempt by the Red River Redevelopment Agency or the Wright Patman Water Agency to construct new reservoirs be subject to approval by the SRBA? Can Mr. Burke, as a part of the water agency, support any reservoir construction by this agency, even as he sits as Executive Director of the SRBA?

These are important questions, and I would hope that you would be so kind as to provide us with some legal answers to them. I look forwards to hearing from David Tuckfield. Thank you.

Sincerely Yours,

Robert Traylor Russell (Historian & Author)