WATER AGENCY RESOLUTION IN WORKS
A resolution that would create a new water agency is still being drawn up in Austin. It must be complete by April 22, the day 11 area cities plan to jointly vote on it.
David Tuckfield, an Austin-based attorney representing the 11 cities, said Wednesday [April 7] he is struggling with the resolution's wording. "Right now we are trying to figure out what it should say and be careful with the wording," Tuckfield said. However, he said the resolution should be written close to the date the cities' governments meet to vote on a measure to create the Wright Patman Regional Water Supply Agency.
[COMMENT: This is just so transparent, it makes me want to throw up. David Tuckfield is that jerk that Burke dragged out back in the fall to justify the legality of board members Patsy McClain and Robert Parker, if you recall my outburst, after which I stormed out of the meeting and called the Sheriff's Department. Now, the Comrade Chairman has hired this same shyster lawyer from Vinson & Elkins who represented Enron (how low can you get?) to do the legal work for this Wright Patman Water Supply Agency. I presume that Burke and Muddlestonvic still sell "walkie-talkies" together in that little shop on the Arkansas side of the border. If this doesn't seem like a "conflict of interest", then I don't know what does. Tuckfield can see to it that everything "comes up roses" with both the Water Agency and the SeRBiA. But with the announcement of the new SeRBiA members, the times may be a-changin'! Finally! R.]
Initially, New Boston, De Kalb, Hooks, Avery and Annona voted on a resolution to create the agency on Feb. 5. This resolution gave the agency "the power and authority to investigate, negotiate and obtain permits and/or contracts for water resources in the state of Texas or with any state, any Indian Nation or tribe and/or any other entity, lawfully create, for the acquisition and transportation of water supplies, to meet existing or future meeds of the agency and its members."
During that Feb. 5 vote, Maud City Council failed to pass the resolution, while Wake Village canceled its meeting to endorse the creation of the agency because of a technicality in the law regarding the time frame between public notices and the meeting itself. Wake Village's date didn't comply with the law. Because those five cities, along with Wake village and Maud, are involved in a lawsuit with Texarkana, Texas, and the Texarkana Water Utilities, 76th District State Judge Jim White of Mount Pleasant placed a gag order on all parties involved earlier this year.
Officials with all seven of the cities have since declined comment on the first attempt to form this agency, citing the gag order and saying the formation of the water agency involves issues that overlap in the lawsuit. However, Wake Village and Maud, as well as the five other cities, in addition to Redwater, Nash, Clarksville and Atlanta, have all recently published legal notices in at least four local news publications that they intend to have their city councils meet at the same time April 22 to consider adopting a resolution creating the same agency.
[COMMENT: Fortunately, one hopes at least, the next Region D meeting is scheduled for April 21 in Gilmer, the day before this concurrent vote. Will Region D do something to postpone or even halt this vote? If not, then why do we have a Region D? Yes, I've heard the argument that this is a "public utility" and does not fall under the jurisdiction of Region D. But it is a public utility involving WATER USAGE, and WATER USAGE certainly falls under the jurisdiction of Region D. Or does it? Are the members of Region D simply useless in this regard? I don't get it, and neither do a lot of other people! R.]
Tuckfield said the resolution he is working on should be similar in wording to the first resolution with the exception of a few minor changes. He declined to give details about what he is writing. "There's going to be a few minor changes, but overall, the wording should be very similar," Tuckfield said.