[COMMENT: There seems to be some legal consensus developing that UNLESS all of the Seven Cities had voted to establish the agency, its creation was invalid under the Texas Government Code Chapter 422. This is being investigated. However, the ultimate question arises: if hooligan mayors can orchestrate such a water agency independently of river authorities or water regions, then why do we have such river authorities and water regions in the first place? If Region D has no control over activities of the rogue Comrade Chairman, then what is the purpose of Region D or any other region? List-member Mary Vogelson of Dallas is a member of Region C. Perhaps Mary can shed some outside objective light on this. At any rate, this should be a "hot topic" at next week's Region D meeting in Gilmer, which I assume starts at 2 PM on Wednesday, February 18. R.]

The Seven Cities' plan to start a new regional water agency is awash for the moment. This is likely a temporary condition, a delay rather than a demise.

The Seven Cities, Wake Village, New Boston, Hooks, De Kalb, Maud, Annona and Avery, were to vote on the resolution Thursday. Wake Village canceled its meeting, based, it seems, on a technical discrepancy in the preceding legal notices. Maud voted against joining the group. New Boston, Hooks, De Kalb, Annona and Avery all voted to form the Wright Patman Regional Water Supply Agency.

State law allows for two or more cities to create such an agency, so even though all the cities didn't act in concordance, enough did to form this pact, or so it would seem. Other cities can be added later.

Opponents, however, aren't so sure it is this simple. They think there may be flaws in the specific language of the resolution as it pertains to initiating this agency. How valid these concerns are is a legal matter, yet opponents have still gained valuable time to petition the Wake Village City Council to call for a public vote. It takes 10 percent of the registered voters to do so.

What does all this mean? It's hard to tell when key parties can't even talk because of a gag order.

As a citizen of Texarkana, my first concern is selfish. I don't want my rates to go up because of this. Will they? I don't know; nobody can talk about it. But I feel like there will eventually be some financial repercussions. After that, I don't want this new agency's existence to have any impact on the Marvin Nichols' debate. We don't need any new players in that game. Beyond those two issues, I have no dog in this fight.

In one sense, I understand where this group is coming from. If the Seven Cities think Texarkana Water Utilities has wronged them, and if they think they can create a more equitable system for themselves, providing a service that costs each customer less, as taxpayers we should give them high praise. But those are a lot of ifs.

We know Texarkana is locked in a lawsuit with these Seven Cities and a judge has told both sides not to talk about specifics. It will be up to the judicial system to decide if the Seven Cities have been wronged on the first question. Can the Seven Cities create a more equitable system? Can they provide water to their customer base for less? The answer to those two questions is much more nebulous.

Usually one larger system is more efficient than two smaller ones. Having the additional revenue stream the Seven Cities provide must help pay for the existing overhead. So Texarkana could potentially lose out on the deal, and costs may ultimately be passed to customers. That isn't really the concern of the Seven Cities. But that also doesn't mean the Seven Cities will necessarily be able to create a less expensive model, either. That will depend on a multitude of factors, some that may not even be apparent at this time. There will be start-up costs, for example. There will be administrative costs. There will be billing systems and maintenance. There will probably be some new infrastructure.

Now, some of the stated motivations I understand, even appreciate. I appreciate public officials looking out for the interests of their citizens. My problem is not the limited agenda that has been offered, but that a broader agenda may emerge form this humble beginning. Sometimes good intentions go other than expected. Sometimes intentions are less than transparent.

It also concerns me that this is being done under the pretext of looking out for future water needs. What future water needs? Growth studies have been done in this area and projects are flat for the next 25 years. One of the reasons the state water plan looks so lustily in this direction is because we have an abundance of water. It also bothers me that there is so little information on why this is being done, who it will help, who it will hurt, and other ramifications, like we should accept this on faith alone.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a law that makes no provision for public input in the creation of public utilities. Residents should be able to ask questions, make comments and hear from their leaders. There is something fundamentally wrong with a law that requires only 14 days to get the question put to a public vote. That is not enough time to present an alternative point of view, increase public awareness and collect the required number of signatures. There is something fundamentally wrong with a gag order that prevents the principals from talking about the details, reasons, hopes, fears and possible consequences when there is a significant amount of public money at stake. If city officials can't talk about it, they should have to wait until after the legal dispute is settled before they take action on it.

Let me be clear on one point. It is not that the Seven Cities did anything outside the law. They just used the laws as they were written to their advantage. The existing rules are simply not conducive to public participation. There should be public hearings involved anytime something as large as this is undertaken. If citizens want to vote on participating, they should be given more than two weeks to organize. A month would seem fairer. Councils, instead of just mayors, should have a vote in electing the directors of a water agency.

This thing is structured like a private club rather than a public entity. When it gets in place, it will be largely outside the public influence. I don't know that these leaders aren't looking out for the best interest of their citizens. But I'd feel better if there was more talk and less silence. When the official comment is "no comment", there is always a concern.