Comments and Criticism

Writer: Why all the secrecy, lack of info on new water agency?

TO THE EDITOR:

I'm concerned about the creation of a new water agency by cities in Bowie, Cass and Red River counties. Some of these concerns follow:

First, in the Gazette (April 16), David Tuckfield, an "Austin based attorney for the water agency" inferred that engineering plans and specifications would be addressed after today's votes by the cities.

Who will pay for this? Compensation for just engineering services ranges from $60 to $120 per hour, not to mention analysts, designers and administrators. (Legal work is much higher.) So who pays? Our small city treasuries and/or outside sources? Can we afford new taxes or higher water bills? If it cones from outside, who are these sources and what do they get in return? Who really has control?

Second, from an editorial (Gazette, April 18), we learn city officials have not had access to the resolution to create this water agency. Why? With so much at stake, the resolution should be studied intensely and well understood by those city councils rubber-stamping it -- and by their citizens. Apparently the resolution has not originated in the local governments, or so they say. Why the secrecy?

If the water agency is to be for local needs, for 12 cities, why are the local officials not in there hammering it out? Why no public meetings? Why is so little information available? Who is dictating this strategy?

If the "gag order" on the lawsuit is the excuse for keeping this agency from the people, why not wait till the lawsuit is resolved? This water agency (read "corporation") would affect the water of three counties. Isn't that worth public input and careful planning for the public's benefit? Why the rush?

Third, why did these 12 small cities acquire the services of the Vinson and Elkins law firm? This firm also represents the seven cities against TWU and the Sulphur River Basin Authority. This is the same firm that got in trouble over their involvement in the Enron fiasco. Enron also had a water marketing division. The links raise my suspicions.

How and why did this small county lawsuit attract the attention of this high-priced law firm? Who's paying them? Can we be sure that their first loyalty is not to some interest that has world-class money and wants to control our water rights?

Fourth, in the Bowie County Citizen's Tribune (Aug. 7, 2002), Ann Tillman, then mayor of Hooks, said $28,000 had been budgeted for the city's legal fees, "the lion's share ($26,000) Hooks' pro rata share in its lawsuit with other cities against the Texarkana Water Utilities." That indicates Hooks may have spent $79,000 of its tax money over the last three years for legal fees. How much are the other cities spending? New Boston has twice as many customers as Hooks; did its pro rata share amount to twice Hooks' share, over $159,000, so far paid to Vinson and Elkins? Was the last tax increase in New Boston levied to pay for lawsuit costs?

Finally, regarding the lawsuit, why have the cities of western Bowie County and the surrounding area been able to work agreeably with TWU for the past 50 years until now when outside interests are coveting Northeast Texas water rights?

Libby Farmer
Wake Village, Texas