06 a., b., & c. Record of Standing CommitteeCITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM BRIEFING SHEET
Submittal Date:
Originating Department:
Presented By:
Agenda Item No.:
07/02/08
City Clerk
Janice Ellis
6a., b., & c.
Council Date:
07/ 14/08
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Motion to approve.
POLICY ISSUE(S):
Record of Standing Committee.
BACKGROUND:
City Council Task Force on Code Enforcement minutes from the meeting on June 3,
2008.
Lake Pat Mayse Study Committee minutes from the meetings on May 29, 2008 and June
5, 2008.
Paris Public Library Advisory Board minutes from the meeting on May 21, 2008.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
EXHIBITS:
The attached minutes have been approved by the appropriate Boards/Commissions.
ACTION:
BUDGET INFO:
❑ Financial Report ~ Minute Order
Expense
$
❑ Department Report ❑ Resolution
Budgeted Amt.
$
❑ Presentation ❑ Ordinance
y'I'D Actual
$
❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other
Acct. Name
Acct. Number
FISCAL NOTES:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Z Administration Z City Clerk ❑ Community Development ❑ EMS/IT ❑ Finance ❑ Fire
❑ Municipal Court ❑ Legal ❑ Libtary ❑ Police ❑ Eng./Public Works ❑ Utilities
City of Paris
Revised 2/04/08
10 0UU0G t
MINUTES
WORK SESSION
CITY COUNCIL TASK FORCE ON CODE ENFORCEMENT
107 E. KAUFMAN STREET
PARIS. TEXAS
TUESDAY, JUNE 3. 2008
l. Call meeting to order and roll call.
Chairman Wilson called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m.
A. The following members were present:
Don Wilson, Chairman
Will Biard
Steve Brown
Bruce Frazier
Jim Lassister
John House
Marilyn Bellevance
Pete Kampfer
B. The following members were absent:
Jerome Pipkins
Don Taylor
Cheryt Moore
Zach Saffle
Bee Garmon
Jerry Rose
John Fuston
C. Also present was Kevin Carruth, City Manager; Lisa Wright, Director of Community
Development; Kent McIlyar, City Attorney; Janice Ellis, City Clerk; Karl Louis,
Chief of Police; and Ronnie Grooms, Fire Chief.
2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting.(May 20, 2008).
Subject to the minutes reflecting Bruce Frazier being present, a Motion to approve the
minutes was made by Pete Kampfer and seconded by Jim Lassister. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Continued discussion of and possible action on recommending provisions regulating the
storage and placement of recreational vehicles.
Chairman Wilson inquired if there was anyone in the public who wished to speak about the
Page 1 of 4
. 000025
items. The following persons addressed the Task Force:
Robert Brunson - he said he had conducted a survey in Paris and he did not find that there
was a big problem with the parking of recreational vehicles.
Jimmy White, 3210 Houston - he said his motor home cost more than his house and inquired
where he could keep the motor home if he could not keep it at home. Chairman Wilson said they
were trying to get recreational vehicles off of the street. Marilyn Bellevance said she used to own
a motor home and having one in your yard could lower the value of your neighbor's home.
Buddy Hussey - he said his recreational vehicle had been parked at his place for over forty
years and he had not received any complaints. Chairman Wilson said that citizens may not call the
owners, but do make complaints to the City Staff.
Judy Blankenship, 4115 Castlegate - she said having recreational vehicles in a driveway was
a safety issue. Ms. Blankenship said one of her neighbors had one in the driveway, and it was
difficult to watch for children when backing out of her driveway. Chairman Wilson said safety was
a concern that needed to be addressed and suggested they explore the possibility of recreational
vehicles being stored in side yards or backyards.
John Hanna, 170 S.W. 46Ih Street - he said there were four recreational vehicles on his street
and there had been no complaints. He said he thought the Task Force had taken this too far.
Chairman Wilson said he had been down 46`h Street and those recreational vehicles were legal.
Council Member Brown said they were attempting to prohibit people from using recreational
vehicles as residences. Chief Louis said they needed an ordinance that officers could enforce and
needed the Committee to come up with guidelines that could be equally enforced.
Ted Brakebill, 3030 W. Kaufinan - he said his camper had been in his yard for twenty years
and would not fit in his backyard.
Mel Whitaker, 265-32nd N.E. - he expressed concern about the effect of the ordinance on
his fifth wheel.
Preston Morgan, 3008 Bonham - he said he had a fifth wheel and from reading the
newspaper, he understood that no recreational vehicles would be allowed on citizens' property.
Chairman Wilson said that not everyone would be affected, because it would depend on the size of
the property and size of the vehicle. Chief Louis stated they needed to address sight obstruction and
safety of persons. Chairman Wilson referenced one situation in which Assistant Chief Hundley went
to a home where the recreational vehicle extended all the way to the street and he could not do
anything about it because there was no ordinance to deal with the situation. Chief Louis said they
need at least a ten to twelve feet clearance for the recreational vehicle. Marilyn Bellevance reiterated
that a recreational vehicle could block the view of a child.
Page 2 of 4
+ 000026
Lawrence Wade - he said his motor home stuck out about 11 feet from his house.
Bee Garmon arrived at 6:08 p.m.
Steve Holmes, 530 N.E. 33`d - he said that safety should be the number one concern and they
needed to pass an ordinance that the officers could enforce.
Mike Hammer, 925 Bunker - he said there was so much junk in some of the neighborhoods
and that it was sad that the City had gone down. Chairman Wilson stated that cleaning up the city
was a big task and the Committee had been working on it for nine months.
Mary Post, 1504 E. Washington - she said she does not think that the side yard would work
for her due to the size of the yard and her recreational vehicle. She also said she understood the need
for an ordinance because of accumulated junk and safety issues.
Don Holiday - he said some people did not have enough room for ten feet between a house
and a recreational vehicle.
Glenn Smallwood, 2855 Simpson - he said he was a private contractor and had eight pick-ups
and a gooseneck trailer at his house. He also said they were taking away rights and he opposed the
ordinance.
Pete Sisson, 3930 Oleander - he asked if the ordinance was complete. Chairman Wilson said
it was sent to Council and returned to the Committee for changes, because there had been complaints
about the ordinance.
With no one else speaking, Chairman Wilson moved to the final draft of the ordinance.
John House suggested they delete item 2 on page 1. A Motion to delete item 2 was made by
Council Member Biard and seconded by Council Member Brown. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Wilson moved to item 3. Chief Louis expressed concern about not having a
limitation on the number of days a recreational vehicle could be used for housekeeping, living,
sleeping quarters, or for the storage personal property. Lisa Wright said it would be difficult for code
enforcement to enforce that type of provision. Following a brief discussion, it was a consensus of
the Committee to restrict a recreational vehicle for no more than seven days for housekeeping, living,
sleeping quarters, or for the storage personal property.
Next, the Committee discussed item 9. There was discussion about registering recreational
vehicles for grandfathering purposes, limiting parking to the side and rear yards, the distance allowed
between the curb and a parked recreational vehicle, and a variance procedure. Staff was instructed
to prepare a draft addressing these issues and bring it back to the Committee.
Page 3 of 4
- 000027
4. Continued discussion of and possible action on recommending revisions to the ordinance
regulating large animals within the city limits.
The Committee did not reach this item.
Adjournment.
There being no further business, a Motion to adjourn was made by Pete Kampfer and
seconded by Council Member Brown. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned
at 7:25 p.m. The next meeting of the Task Force will be July 1, 2008, because of various scheduling
conflicts.
APPROVED THIS 1 ST DAY OF JULY, 2008.
4)44
Don Wilson, Chairman
Page 4 of 4
- 000028
MINUTES
WORK SESSION
LAKE PAT MAYSE STUDY COMMITTEE
107 E. KAUFMAN STREET
PARIS, TEXAS
THURSDAY, MAY 29. 2008
1. Call the meeting to order.
Vice-Chairman Dennis Chalaire called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Members present were Dennis Chalaire, John Kruntorad, Rick McDougall, Gene McWaters,
Sharron Nabors, Jim Noble, and Richard Quarles. Members absent were Herb Campbell, Michael
Moffitt, and Dan Smith. Ex-Officio Members present were Renee Harvey, Frank Wright, Ray Ball,
and Bob Campbell. Ex-Officio members absent were Byron Billman and Jim Kays. Alternate
member Joan Mathis was absent.
Also, present were city staff Kevin Carruth, City Manager; Kent McIlyar, City Attorney;
Shawn Napier, City Engineer; Doug Harris, Interim Public Utilities Director; and Janice Ellis, City
Clerk.
2. Citizens forum.
No one spoke.
3. Receive and act on minutes from the May 15, 2008 meeting.
Chairman Hayter arrived to the meeting. Subject to item 4 being changed to reflect there
were no changes to number 3 of the goals and objectives; and that Chairman Reeves be corrected
to Chairman Hayter, a Motion to approve the minutes was made by John Kruntorad and seconded
by Pike Burkhart, motion carried unanimously.
4. Question and Answer session with Jim Mathews. (See Exhibit "A" attached)
Chairman Hayter announced that Darrell Cline, the city's water rate consultant was in
attendance. Subsequently, he turned the meeting over to Jim Mathews. Jim Mathews acknowledged
receipt of questions from Shawn Napier and stated that he would address those questions.
The first issue address by Jim Mathews was cancellation of water rights. He said that almost
all of surface water was owned by the State of Texas, but that the right to use state water could be
obtained through an appropriative water right. The appropriative right gives the right to use the
water, but if you do not use it fully there is a statutory duty to return unused return flows back to the
river of origin if that is feasible. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has the authority
by statute to cancel a water right in whole or part for ten years of continuous non-use. There are
Page 1 of 3
. 000029
specific statutory exceptions to cancellation and one important exception that applies to Paris water
rights and Lake Pat Mayse is the result of the construction of a reservoir funded in whole or in part
by the holder of the permit as part of the holder's long-term water supply plan. The reservoir was
built back in the mid-60s and was a Corps of Engineer project. The City of Paris contracted with
the Corps for a long term water supply. Mr. Mathews said he thought the City was secure under this
specific exception to the cancellation provision. Another exception is if a permit was obtained to
meet a demonstrated long-term public water supply need and if it is consistent with the projection
of future water needs contained in the state water plan. With regard to most cancellations by the
State, they have to do with irrigation water rights that fall into disuse over time. Mr. Mathews stated
to perfect your water right means to first get the water right and then put that water to beneficial use.
Mr. Mathew addressed why impoundment falls under congressional control. He said that the
U.S. government exercises control over things in this state that relate to interstate commerce, and
a lot of water relates to interstate commerce, because it flows between states. The federal
government operates a permitting program for the discharge of pollutants, and in Texas that program
is run by the TCEQ. With regard to the water right, the State is the party that owns the water right
except where there may be some need for federal oversight, such as interstate water, and that is the
Red River.
Mr. Mathews said another question was raised as to whether or not the Red River Compact
was relevant to this Committee's charge. He answered in the affirmative. He said all of the water
from the Pat Mayse Reservoir upstream is within the sole control of the State of Texas, and they are
the entity that issues the permit.
Next, Mr. Mathews discussed the issue of either raising the elevation of the reservoir to
increase storage, or to reallocate some of the storage. He said the Corps is the one who owns the
reservoir and is the one that sets the allocations pursuant to their Congressional mandate for both
flood control purposes and beneficial use purposes. In order to have reallocation, the City would
have to amend its water right permit. Another question addressed was the possibility of increasing
the dam for purposes of increasing storage. Mr. Mathews said this request would have to also go
through the Corps, because they actually own the dam.
Mr. Mathews discussed the 1997 Compromise dealing with inter-basin transfers. He said
an inter-basin transfer is when you move water from one river basin in the state to another river basin
for beneficial use. He stated that the Compromise gave inter-basin transfers a new priority date,
which was the date of the transfer. Prior to the City of Irving being able to get an inter-basin transfer,
the State would take a look at the effects of water quality and water chemistry. If the decision was
made to sell water, it would not require that everyone in the Red River Compact approve the transfer.
Notices would have to be given to county judges and mayors, because the statute gives the right for
comments to be filed with the State.
Another question asked was if Irving purchases water from Hugo or other Oklahoma sources
and brings it into Texas pipeline, would TCEQ have jurisdiction over the water? Mr. Mathews said
this was a complicated issue and was not sure what type of permit might be required. He said they
Page 2 of 3
. 000030
could require a water right permit or a bed and bank permit.
Mr. Mathews said he did not have a direct answer as to why Irving would offer Paris
$200,000.00 to participate in studies when Irving could have done so on their own. He speculated
that it made sense for Irving to approach, because they were looking for a partner and wanted
cooperation. Subsequently, Mr. Mathews talked about the possibility for Paris to structure a
contract with Irving in light of the existing contractual obligations of the City of Paris. He said there
would need to be a considerable amount of analysis concerning contractual rights with the Corps and
appropriative waters rights with the State of Texas. He suggested that they review the last five years
to determine what the needs of customers had been and work with the customers to determine what
their future needs would be. He said the City could find out how much of contractual obligations
were surplus to the anticipated needs of the customer and then make arrangements to sell that water
to Irving. He also said there would need to be a mechanism in place to get that water back from
Irving if it was needed by the customers. Mr. Mathews stated that the City of Paris could make any
offer it desired with regard to terms, conditions and limitations on their use of water.
Mr. Mathews suggested that if Paris ever had occasion to readdress the water rights, they
pursue appropriated use for both municipal and industrial. He also suggested that Paris not sell all
of the water out of Pat Mayse, but plan for future grown out of the Pat Mayse source. He suggested
that the City develop other alternate sources of water that may be marketable and give a return,
because of the revenue stream.
Receive questions for HDR Consulting Engineers.
Chairman Hayter reminded the members to formulate questions for HDR Consulting
Engineers and get them to Shawn Napier no later than Monday.
6. Review and discuss the briefing books.
Shawn Napier presented the Committee Members with additional handouts for their briefing
books.
7. Possible future agenda items.
8. Adjournment.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Robert
Campbell and seconded by Rick McDougall, motion carried unanimous. The meeting was adjourned
at 5:55 p.m.
Approved thisC _ day of e, 008
Reeves
Page 3 of 3
0 000031
Questions for Jim Mathews from the Pat Mayse Water Study Committee
May 29, 2008
Cancellation
1. It has been suggested that if we do not use our water rights i.n Pat Mayse that
these could be revoked by the TCEQ. Historically, has this ever happened in
Texas? What are some of the reasons why it would or would not be likely in the
foreseeable future?
2. In the PMLSC briefing book, there are two references to the possibility of the
State reallocating some of the unused water in Pat Mayse Lake, the rights to
which The City of Paris currently has or is in the process of acquiring.
0 What is the statutory or case law that allows this?
4 Are there any precedents for this action being taken?
41 What are they?
4 Are the circumstances similar to the situation Paris is currently in?
• What factors cause an impoundment to fall under Congressional control? Size?
Proposed uses? Drainage basin location?
3. What does it mean to "perfect" water rights? Why would we "never" sell water
rights?
Red River Compact
4. Is the Red River Compact, or any other interstate compact, relevant to this
committee's charge? Does Paris have control of the discharge from its wastewater
treatment plant, or water downstream of the Pat Mayse and Lake Crook spillways,
or return flows from Lamar Power and Campbell Soup?
5. What effects does the Red River Compact have on our situation (what scenarios
can we eliminate up front from the long list of possibilities we have to consider;
e.g. is the City prevented from taking action to impound more water, reducing the
amount that flows downstream)?
Permitting of Intei--basin Transfer
6. What are some of the typical issues that Irving might need to address in a trans-
basin permit?
7. If Irving purchases water from Hugo or other Oklahoma sources and brings it into
Texas via pipeline, does TCEQ have any jurisdiction over the water? If the water
Exhibit "A"
. U0003?
were piped into Pat Mayse, who would be responsible for the ultimate water
quality?
8. What environmental studies or permits will be required when considering the sale
of water from Pat Mayse?
Paris/Irving Memorandum of Understanding
9. Why would Irving offer Paris $200,000 to participate in studies when Irving could
do these on their own?
Water Supply Contract Issues
10. Is it possible for the City of Paris to structure a contract with Irving that would
allow Paris to sell water that is contractually obligated to LCWS (12 MGD),
Campbell Soup (8 MGD), Lamar Power Partners (8 MGD), and Direct Energy
(2.3 MGD), but that is not actually being used by these 4 customers (in addition to
the potential sale of the excess water)?
Last 3 Yr Av~
Contract
(MGD)
MGD
LCWS
2.99
12
Campbell
2.58
g
LPP
3.36
g
Direct
0.36
2,3
Total
9.29
30.3
Put another way, these 4 customers are using only 9.3 MGD of the 30.3 MGD that
they are contracted for. Can the difference (21 MGD) be sold to Irving until it is
needed by LCWS, Campbell Soup, LPP, and Direct Energy?
11. Does the City Ordinance adopted by the City Council regarding a needed
approval vote by Paris Citizens for direct sale of water outside of Lamar County
also apply to subsequent sale of Pat Mayse water by contract users? Examples: a.
Contract user purchases water from the City, and subsequently decides to sell to
outside Lamar County users? b. Does that citizen vote also prohibit subsequent
contractor sales outside the county?
Paris/Corps of Engineers Contract
12. Any thoughts regarding the reallocation of water from flood control or
sedimentation to water supply- time frames, difficulties, cost, etc.
13. Please walk us through the Corps of Engineers contract and amendments to help
our understanding of the water availability issues.
14. When considering Pat Mayse Lake as a reservoir for increasing lake capacity or
for a storage pool, what regulatory restrictions or requirements have to be met and
2
! 000033
what studies and permits are required? Does the potential effect on recreational
use come into play under these considerations?
15. Does the City of Paris have the legal right to impound water above elevation 451
ft. or below elevation 415 ft. for purposes of selling, or redirecting it from normal
down stream flow patterns? Example: Can the City pump from the flood pool or
post spillway overflows for storage at other reservoirs?
16. Does the contract for water rights between the Corps of Engineers, and the City of
Paris allow for changes in the lake levels for additional holding capacity?
Example: Raising the dam height, dredging, or acquiring additional flood plain
for holding more water above the 451 ft. elevation?
17. If the water rights have not been fully paid for by the City of Paris, could another
entity buy the unpaid portion from the Corps of Engineers and subsequently call
the note?
New Watet• Supply Sources
18. Who owns the water that exits the lake via the spillway?
19. At exactly what point does the water exit the lake and become effluent?
20. If it is determined that there is no excess water to sell, or if Paris enters i.nto a
contract to sell a large quantity of water to the City of Irving or anyone else, all of
the Pat Mayse water to which water Paris owns the rights is or will be effectively
accounted for, and the City should begin developing a new source of water for the
future (intense competition for existing resources and the length of time required
for efforts). In the current regulatory environment, what are the best options
available for the development of future water supply sources?
21. Who has legal water rights to all water after it passes the 451 ft. elevation level
and progresses down stream from Pat Mayse Lake spillway?
3
. OOUC3 3
Jim Mathews met on Thursday, May 29, from 4 to 6 p.m. with the Pat Mayse Lake Water Study
Committee to answer questions submitted last week by committee members.
Darrell Cline, the city's water rate consultant, with R.W. Beck, also sat in on the meeting.
Jim Mathews: I received a set of questions from Shawn. I compliment you for a set of very arduous
questions. I really had to step back and think about these. I'm going to attempt all of these questions. On
some, I may not have THE answer, but I'll have some comments to make.
The first issue I'll address is Cancellation.
I know thaYs been a concern about whether the city's existing water rights in Lake Pat Mayse would be
subject to cancellation if it doesn't do something to market that water in the near future. I have a series of
questions, some fairly specific about cancellation, including the statutory and case law that applies to this.
I will try to be very brief about this, but I think a little bit of basics is really important.
In Texas, almost all surface water is owned by the State of Texas. There are a very few minor
exceptions that don't apply in your circumstance. The right to use state water can be obtained through
what is called an appropriative water right. Texas has a long history of many jurisdictions, and over the
decades and centuries we've actually handled water in very different ways, but at this point in time the
Legislature has reduced us to a purely appropriative scheme. That means you have to have a piece of
paper from the state that gives you the right to use surFace water before you can take it and use it.
The other thing that's important is, that water always belongs to the state. What they're giving you with
this appropriative right is the right to use the water. You can use it fully. You can consume it in the
process. But if you don't use it fully, there is a statutory duty to return unused return flows back to the river
of origin if that's feasible. So you have this appropriative right scheme, and the state back in 1957
adopted some cancellation statutes. which gave the state agency and that's changed over time; it's now
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality but that state agency has the authority by statute to
come in and cancel a water right in whole or in part for 10 years of continuous non-use. That legislative
action was challenged early on, and the Supreme Court issued an opinion that it was constitutional for
them to do this, because the state has given a right to USE the water, not to NOT use the water. And this
10-year mechanism was a way to say if you're not going to really put it to beneficial use we're going to
come back and take it back because somebody else might need it for appropriation.
So those statutes do exist. However, over time those statutes have been amended to recognize some
very specific exceptions. I've been doing this for a fair number of years. The big problem used to be that
Dallas accepts it. Dallas has lakes all over East Texas one is Lake Palestine, OK? Still not connected to
the Dallas system. I suspect that lake has been there for 30-plus years, so the water has not been put to
a beneficial use by Dallas at this point in time. And there used to be some concerns because I did some
work for Dallas about "Oh, if we don't do something, we might end up losing this water." And over the
years, there were efforts to amend the statute to address these kinds of situations.
Let me tell you of at least a couple of specific statutory exceptions to cancellation that I think would
likely apply to the Paris water rights and Lake Pat Mayse. Probably the most important one is, there's an
exception if the permit is the result of the construction of a reservoir funded in whole or in part by the
holder of the permit as part of that holder's long-term water supply plan. That sounds like that fits to a T
your situation. The reservoir was built back in the mid-60s, it was a Corps of Engineer project, you
contracted with the Corps, it was for your long-term supply. Those contracts recognize thaYs what it was
for, and so I don't think the state could cancel your rights regardless of whether it's fully utilized today or
tomorrow or next week or next year. ThaYs the current law; I'm not telling you the Legislature couldn't
change the law, but I think you are secure under that existing exception to the cancellation provision.
There are a couple of others that arguably fit your situation, maybe not as closely as the one about the
funding the construction of reservoirs, but one that was put in place was to deal with the regional water
planning process. If a significant portion of the water under the water rights is authorized pursuant to a
permit that's been used in accordance with a specific recommendation for meeting a water need included
. 000035
in a regional water plan. I have not become an expert on your Region D plan, but I'm sure Paris has its
water use in there, and it comes from Lake Pat Mayse in part.
(Sharron Nabors: it's not.)
JM: I've not gone to look at your regional water plan, but certainly the process was for each water user
group to have identified what their strategies were for meeting the need, so I don't know whether Pat
Mayse Lake is or not mentioned, but it should have been. And one thing you need to understand, when I
say the regional water plan, the way I access the regional water plan is I go to the Texas Water
Development Board Web site and you will find there are appendices upon appendices upon appendices.
So when you read1he plan, you might not see Lake Pat Mayse, but I would be willing to speculate that
somewhere in there Pat Mayse has shown up in one of the appendices.
(Sharron: I don't think so.)
Reeves Hayter: That's not correct. All of Paris' and Lamar County's water comes from Pat Mayse
reservoir, and iYs all shown in the plan, back there in what they call the database, the D607 appendix to
the plan. That's where it shows all of Lamar County's water coming from.
JM: The simple narrative document that you get is supplemented by all these appendices, and
sometimes the devil is in the details and sometimes that's where that kind of detail exists. I disclaim
express knowledge about your plan, but I would suspect if the issue came up we could look at that and
see if that exception exists.
Again, my point is I think the first exception I described to you fits your situation to a T.
A couple of other exceptions are, is if the permit was obtained to meet a demonstrated long-term public
water supply need, and it's consistent with the projection of future water needs contained in the state
water plan.
There are also others that are more specific and don't quite fit your situation. One deals with the
situation where a certified filing, which is a very old water right. Before we even got to the state issuing
permits, if you had like a mining claim or something, you could go to the county clerk's office and file what
was called a certified filing. So if you happened to have a water right that's based upon one of these
certified filings, and you're a city, that water right cannot be canceled if the water has been put to use
under the certified filing for municipal purposes during any 10-year period.
So like I said, the Legislature back during the 50s came out with this broad cancellation provision. It
wasn't heavily used, but the Legislature over time has recognized that there are people who have done
projects, made investments, and are sitting there with concerns about cancellations, and they have come
in to try to address those needs. So under current law I do not have any anxiety that there is a grounds to
cancel any of your water rights that are not currently being used in Lake Pat Mayse.
One part of the question asked me had to do with the history of cancellations. By and large, most of the
cancellations the state has done are for irrigation water rights, which can fall into disuse over time, and a
lot of them are in the Rio Grande Valley, where there is a water master. And the Rio Grande Valley is
different from the rest of the state in that its water rights are the result of a court case as opposed to this
legislative scheme, and most of the rights are allocated over time and a water master has been appointed
to ride herd over all of that, and if water is not used over there, it is such an arid part of the state, a very
precious commodity that they do monitor that situation, and if you've got an irrigation right that goes into
10 years or more of non-use, they may take some action to cancel that.
The question was asked about what does it mean to perfect your water right, and why would we never
sell our water right. A moment ago when I told you we have this appropriative scheme, if you want a
water right from the State of Texas, you have to go in and file an application, and iYs a fairly arduous
process. They really take a good, close look at it, and the first question is, is there water available for
appropriation. But assuming you get your water right granted to you, until you put that water to beneficial
, 000036
use, it is not perfected. But once you do, it is perfected, and it becomes a property right, just like any other
property right, and if iYs taken from you, you have to be compensated for it. i would submit to you that the
exception, as recognized by the Texas Supreme Court, is this cancellation for non-use, because again
what you have is a right of use, not the ownership of the corpus of the water. And so the state could come
back in and could cancel that, but as opposed to any other party who wants to tread on your property
rights, once you've put it to use, it is perfected and the court would recognize it as it would your ownership
of a fee simple title.
There was also a question here...
Reeves Hayter: Before you get away from that, Jim, what effect does that have here. We haven't used
all our water, so some of our water rights are not perfected.
Jim: I don't see anybody else being able to do that. You have begun the beneficial use of your water
right, paid for through the construction of this reservoir and this project. And before the state adopted this
exception that basically protected a permitee that had paid for the construction of the Corps project,
arguably they could have come in and canceled. They never attempted to do that, and Dallas was sitting
out there for decades with these major reservoirs that were planned for decades in the future. And so the
state never saw fit to do that, but the Legislature finally stepped up and said, "OK, we understand you've
made major capital investments and you'd like to have some protection. We're going to give you that
protection." And so I don't see under current law they could cancel any unused portion of your project at
this point in time.
Sharron Nabors: Tyler lost its water. Surface water.
JM: It's my understanding that Tyler still owns its water rights to Lake Palestine, but I don't know for
sure.
Darrell Cline: I'm their rate consultant, and to my knowledge they haven't lost them. My understanding
is that Dallas participated in the construction, so they have a portion of the water rights, and Tyler also
participated in the construction, so they have a portion of the water rights. Tyler still has the same amount
they've always had.
JM: I'll be glad to look into that.
JM: I'll move on now to this next question, which is somewhat different, what factors can cause an
impoundment to fall under congressional control. Let me give you the legal answer. The United States
government exercises control over things in this state that relate to interstate commerce, and lots of water
relates to interstate commerce, because it flows between states, or iYs the habitat for migratory birds that
fly between states. So there are a few case laws that keep evolving at the Supreme Court level about the
extent of the reach of the interstate commerce laws. Secondly, Congress exercises control over things
that are related to the federal perks, when they spend money. They clearly spent money to construct
Lake Pat Mayse, and so they have the onwership interests of Lake Pat Mayse. They own the reservoir.
They have contracted with the City of Paris to give you the right to store water in that reservoir, and the
right to use the storage space between 415 msl and 451 msl, and it's a quantified amount of space in
there, so clearly Congress has some control over Lake Pat Mayse. Let me give you an exampte that's not
only a cost of the water rights subject but a water quality subject. The federal government operates a
permitting program for the discharge of pollutants, and in Texas that program is run by the TCEQ, but for
the city's wastewater treatment plant and for industrial wastewater discharges, you have to go get a
permit. You get it from the state, but really it's a federal permit, and they do that because they have the
right to protect water, because iYs useful in interstate commerce. With regard to the water right, the state
is the party that owns the water right except where there may be some need for federal oversight, such as
~ 000037
interstate water, and that would be the Red River, which we're going to get to fairly shortly. I'm going to
talk to you about the Red River Compact, which is a division or allocation of the water between Texas,
Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. The water that flows in the Red River. They're exercising that control
because it is interstate water. It touches the states as it flows from its origin down to the Gulf of Mexico.
Let me move to a brief discussion of the Red River Compact.
Questions specifically raised are Is that compact relevnt to this committee's charge. Well, the easy
answer to that is yes, because if you were to look at the Paris water rights, the certificates of adjudication
that you hold from the state, they expressly say that the rights granted here are subject to the Red River
Compact. So by the very terms of the document giving you the right to use it, it is subject to that. Having
said that, the Red River Compact while it generally allocates this water between the four different
jurisdictions, it is a very complicated compact. It has some defined areas that are subject to the individual
controt of the individual states. And there is a specific identified subject, Sanders Creek, identified as a
water body that up to the point of the last dam on Sanders Creek, which is Pat Mayse Reservoir, is under
the exclusive control of the State of Texas, and Texas has the right to all water in the tributary, and
Sanders Creek is a tributary to the Red River up to that dam. Beyond that dam, the water that goes over
the dam is subject to the compact, and it is subject to having to meet a requirement of the purity, if there
is a 3,000 cubic feet per second flow at the border of Arkansas and Louisiana. And each of those four
jurisdictions cannot get more than 25 percent of the water thaYs available above that 3,000 cfs flow. This
is getting complicated, but what this means in very lay language is if you went in to get a permit for water
below Pat Mayse Reservoir, you would get it from the State of Texas, but in doing their determination
about whether there was water available for appropriation, they would run their water availability model,
and one of the things that's input to the model is downstream, we've got to have 3,000 cfs of flow.
Modeling is very complicated, but it basically tracks all water coming into the Red River, and it can tell you
when you're going to have appropriations that will interfere with this 3,000 cfs flow. And once they
determine that water is available for appropriation, yet Texas' share of that water cannot exceed 25
percent of that above the 3,000 cfs. I think if they found that there was water available for appropriation,
and if there was not more than 25 percent of all of that water that's subject to compact, has already been
appropriated in Texas, they could issue an appropriative water right for that. All of their water right
permitting decisions take lots of time by most people's standard. Eighteen months is fast to get a water
rights permit through the TCEQ, but this one would be complicated and it would require a lot of technical
expertise to assist with the analysis, but it should be investigated and should be evaluated. So, the short
answer is the Red River Compact does apply; however, by its express terms, all the water from the Pat
Mayse Reservoir upstream is within the sole control of the State of Texas, and they're the entity that
issues the permit and they don't ever have to release any water from Pat Mayse to satisfy this 3,000 csf
flow. ThaYs going to come from the waters below these identified reservoirs.
One of the issues y'alf have looked at is the issue of either raising the elevation of the reservoir to
increase storage, or to reallocate some of the storage that's in there now, and I saw a question raised
about could you get a permit for water that flows over the dam into Sanders Creek and off into the Red
River. So after having discussed this thing about the compact, let me try to address your specific
question.
If you were to try to reallocate the water that's in the reservoir now, which is really three levels of water,
you have your sedimentation pool, and you have your conservation pool, which is where your water is,
between 415 and 451 msl. And above that you have flood storage. You could approach the Corps and I
know your staff has met with the Corps to discuss this issue and how the process would work about
trying to re-evaluate those pools of water, and see if more water could be moved into the conservation
pool, thaYs a Corps decision. They're the ones who own the reservoir, they're the one who set these
allocations in the first place, pursuant to their Congressional mandate for both flood control purposes and
~ 000038
beneficial use purposes. So that part of it would be a Corps decision. In order to have any reallocation
beneficially affect you with regard to water rights, you would have to go to the state, the TCEQ, and you
would have to amend your water right permit. Basically, the water permits authorize you to store water,
and they authorize you to divert and use water. And the amount that is authorized for diversion and use is
based upon an anatysis that would have been done at the time the permit was issued, to determine the
firm yield of this project. And the simple explanation of that is if you start into the drought of record, with
the reservoir full, how much water can you take out on an annual basis and still have water left by the
time the drought of record is over with. And most of the state like in Denison, which is where I'm from
the drought of record was in the 50s 1950 to 1956 and 1957. And so they will look at that period and do
this calculation, and they will determine how much water you can take out on an annual basis and get
through the drought of record with one year's worth of water left in the reservoir. And it's dependent on the
storage, and it's dependent on how the drought of record works, from the standpoint of evaporation,
temperature, and so forth. So, you'd have to get the Corps to do the re-allocation, and you'd have to get
the state, the TCEQ, to change your permit based on that reallocation. If you could accomplish those two
steps, you could have a change in the authorized amount of use out of the reservoir. I'm going to give
you a huge generalization here I cannot tell you this applies in your situation I know the Corps has
on some frequency engaged in re-allocation. There are two reasons, I think, why that happens. One, the
Corps historically has been very conservative in estimating flood storage space. They've been very
protective. They want to make sure that their project prevents flooding, etc. Two, if they lose some of that
flood storage space into conservation storage and it gets to be beneficial use, thaYs a revenue
enhancement to the Corps, because you're going to have to pay them for the storage space for that
water. So they have some incentive to want to do that. It's always going to be fact specific and fact
dependent. They're going to take a good, hard look at it if you ask them to do that. That would be a way
you could increase the amount of water that's available to you out of Lake Pat Mayse.
A second question raised was if you were to try to increase the height of the dam for purposes of
increasing storage. That, too, starts with the Corps of Engineers, because as I said iYs their reservoir;
they actually own the dam. You might have paid for the construction of it, but they're the owners. So they
would have to consent to make that change. And in order for that change to be effective for you, in terms
of increasing your diversions from the project, you would have to go to the state again, the TCEQ, and
you would have to amend your water rights permit. I think I know the answer to this, but I'm not 100
percent sure. I talked to the gentleman at the state who is their staff person over the Red River Compact,
and he doesn't know the answer to this either. As I said, the state has the full rights of ownership and
control of that water up to Pat Mayse Reservoir. But in the compact, Pat Mayse Reservoir is identified and
the storage capacity is identified. If you were to raise the dam, you're going to increase that storage
capacity, and so there's at least a bit of an issue, the kind of thing that lawyers love, there's a bit of an
issue, and some Oklahoma lawyers would come along and say, "Whoa, you can't do that, because really
what you've really got the right to use is that 109,000 or so acre feet of storage that it was listed at
(between 415 and 451 msl)." There are two documents that are attached to the compact that are
generally not available; they live over at TCEQ. One is an engineering report, and one is a legal analysis.
I talked to him today about the legal analysis, and it says the identification of those projects is not
determinative of the rights under the compact. (Somewhere in there is) the language that says the
State of Texas has the right to control all waters up to that reservoir. IYs not a matter of how big you make
it over time, because some of the reservoirs were even in the planning stages as opposed to the
construction stage. So I think the answer is, that would be between the State of Texas and the Corps of
Engineers, and the Red River Compact would not come into play. But there is at least an issue out there
that somebody would choose to fight about.
Let me take the third thing that we talked about, and try to break it down. If you determined that it was
prudent, smart, good business, whatever, to try to divert water from downstream of Pat Mayse Reservoir,
it is clear to me that the Compact does come into play at that point in time. So while you go to the State of
M 000039
Texas to get your permit, that analysis of the permit applicaiton has to factor in the requirements of the
Compact, such as meeting this 3,000 csf flow at the border of Louisiana and Arkansas, and that the State
of Texas not get more than 25 percent of the total water that is subject to the Compact. But it still would
be determined by Texas. Now, if Oklahoma thought that Texas had gone to 26 percent of that total water,
they could choose to litigate it right there. I have no idea what the facts are with regard to that. I would
suspect that there's a lot of water unappropriated in the Red River, just because of the salinity of the
water.
OK, IeYs talk briefly now about permitting an inter-basin transfer. First let me define an inter-basin
transfer. Let me back up and give you some history. In 1997, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1, which
was the first major reorganization of the state water planning process that had been done in decades.
They had a huge fight over lots of issues, and one of the big issues that they fought about was whether or
not water was going to be moved fairly freely around this state. And there was a big fight between Buster
Brown (of Lake Jackson), who was the senator who carried the bill, and the state rep from Mauriceville
(Ron Lewis), and as is typical of a lot of these legislative issues, and water issues are always pretty
heated in the Legislature, it went down to the last day, and they didn't have a bill, and they were trying to
compromise and get a bill out of both bodies that could pass. A lot of time, a lot of work had been
invested in this. And the compromise was, inter-basin transfers would be allowed, but that inter-basin
transfers would be given a new priority date not the priority date attached to the original water right, but
the priority date of the transfer itself. And in water law, priority dates are real important, because that
controls who gets the water in times of drought. And that was put in the inter-basin requirements back in
1997. There were at the time about 100 inter-basin transfers throughout the state. I had been involved in
permitting some before that statute was passed, and I've been involved in permitting some after that
statute was passed. And the Legislature really loaded up the inter-basin transfer statute and put a lot of
requirements on it to make it procedurally difficult and really to throw some obstacles in terms of doing
that. I represented the Greater Texoma Utility Authority, who sold some water to the North Texas
Municipal Water District out of Lake Texoma, going from the Red River basin to the Trinity River basin. To
my surprise, it went through without opposition and it went through relatively quickly for the TCEQ. That
means about 18 months, but that's still relatively quickly for that process.
An inter-basin transfer is when you move water from one river basin in the state to another river basin
for beneficial use. It's just what it says it is. It's inter basin. And so, the Legislature has made the process
a whole lot more complicated. Let me tell you some of the issues that would have to be addressed as part
of Irving getting an inter-basin transfer, or the City of Paris getting an inter-basin transfer. The state will
look at the effects on water quality, and they look down to the level of the water chemistry. For the water
thaYs coming from Lake Texoma to Lake Lavon, they were concerned about the pds content of Lake
Lavon. They required some permit provisions that it had to be blended at a certain ratio to maintain a
certain amount of pds content and not exceed that in Lake Lavon. I think it ended up being a 4-to-1 ratio,
four parts of Lavon water to one part of Texoma water. So they couldn't just freely move that water down
there, they had to blend it. The state will look at effects on fish and wildlife habitat. They're very serious
about this. They raised questions in the North Texas issue about algae blooms on Lake Texoma and how
that might affect Lake Lavon. So these are things the state gets into at a serious level.
One other requirement that applies to all permits, not just inter-basin transfers, is whether the
application is consistent with an approved regional water plan. And so if the regional water plan does not
currently have language in it that addresses Irving meeting its needs to inter-basin transfers, they'll have
to go get that plan amended and submit it to the water development board in order for an inter-basin
transfer to be consistent.
Another requirement that was part of the 1997 compromise was that the state will look at the proposed
mitigation or compensation that is, the rate for water that is going to be applied in the process. And
every single county judge in the basin of origin the Red River Basin will get notice that this application
x 000040
has been filed, and they have a right to file with the state comments on the mitigation of the compensation
being paid for this water. So you can see the Legislature tried to make it a very inclusive, politically
complicated process. Obviously, the state is going to look at the impact of an inter-basin transfer on
existing water rights. Another thing that they will look at is the need for the water in the basin of origin
that is, the Red River Basin and in the receiving basin. For Irving, that would be the Trinity River Basin.
So, is there really a need in the Trinity River Basin, and if water from Lake Pat Mayse is going to flow
there, how is that going to impact the need for water in this area? Are needs still going to be met? The
TCEQ will also look at the projected economic impact that is expected to occur in each basin as a result
of the transfer. And in the case I was referring to, an economist was hired to write a report about
economic impacts on both basins. IYs not something they expect lip service to. They really want to have
an analysis of whaYs going on. So it's a fairly arduous process to get one of these permits. IYs not at all
impossible; it's been done, but iYs something there is a lot of process built into.
As I mentioned, these inter-basin transfers wil► have a junior priority date, so the transfer out of Lake
Texoma to Lake Lavon, has, I guess, a 2004 priority date associated with it, where the water rights that
Denison holds in Lake Texoma probably go back to the 50s or 60s. ThaYs simply a way for the
Legislature to try to discourage the movement of surface water.
So, that's the drill on inter-basin transfer permits a lot of process, a lot of very detailed questions and
analysis that the state takes a look at. But thaYs not to say that can be a real big impediment to moving
water around the state when there is a need for water and a surplus of water in other areas that can meet
that need.
Question: If the citizens of Paris found we had water to sell, and decided to sell it, we'd have to go
through the permitting process, which means everybody in the Red River Compact area would have to
approve that transfer?
JM: No, not approve. Simply, they have to give notice to all countyjudges, and I think notice to mayors
of all cities that have a population in excess of one thousand. So there's broad notice to elected officials.
The county judges are specifically given by statute the right to file comments with the state on what they
think is appropriate with regard to either mitigation to the basin of origin, which is the Red River Basin, or
the compensation that is going to be paid by the City of Irving.
Question: Is that all counties in all four states?
JM: No, just in Texas. This is purely a Texas statute and would apply only within the state of Texas.
It is a right to comment. It's not control. The thing I'd emphasize here, the only one I've been involved
with since the statute passed,
there was no mitigation planned with regard to the sale, there was merely a compensation provision. I'm
not aware that any county judge commented on that at all. Was no hearing requests, and no hearing
granted on the application. It went through surprisingly quickly and efficiently for something that had this
much process built into it. Both parties did a good job communicating within their respective areas what
they were going to do about it, and everybody pretty much said, "Sounds like a good deal to me."
The water that's going to move inter-basin will have a priority date associated with it of the date of
application. The priority date means anybody who has an earlier water right has a right to have their water
rights met in full before that water right can be exercised. If you didn't have a storage reservoir, if you just
had a stream, and I'm downstream and I've got a 1901 water right, and you're upstream and you've got a
2004 water right, in a drought, if I'm not getting the water that applies under my permit, I call the state and
say, you know, I think somebody's diverting my water upstream, go talk to them. And they would tell all
these newer water rights holders, you got to pass through your water until I got my water first. ThaYs how
the priority key works in the appropriative water rights system. It becomes more complicated in a situation
like you have here, where there's a storage reservoir, because Paris has a right to capture and store that
water with a 1964 priority date to it, and regardless of whether you sell it to Irving, or you use it locally, or
, 000041
it just stays in there as storage, you have that right, with that priority date associated with it. So I'm not
sure this junior water thing the Legislature put in to provide some type of disincentive, and clearly that's
what iYs designed to do, is try to make a disincentive to surtace water transfer. I'm not sure they have a
lot of application in the reai world from the water being diverted from a storage reservoir.
Let's address question 7: If Irving purchases water from Hugo or other Oklahoma sources and brings it
into Texas via pipeline, does TCEQ have jurisdiction over that water? If the water were piped into Lake
Pat Mayse, who would be responsible for the ultimate water quality?
I'm going to tell you up front: this is a very complicated issue. First of all, water that is brought into
Texas from outside the state, and put into a water course in Texas, becomes state water. And so if water
from Hugo is put into Lake Pat Mayse, it is a water course, and that becomes state water at that point in
time. I'm not quite sure, and I talked to the gentleman this morning who is the state staff person on the
Red River Compact, and he was not quite sure. I'm not quite sure what kind of permit the state might
require for this. They have two choices. They could require a water right permit we're going to now
introduce this water into the state and make it state water. There is also something called a bed and bank
permit. So when you're using the beds and banks of the state's water courses to move developed water,
you still have to get permission from the state to use those state water courses. Developed water in
general is water that would not be here but for your efforts to get it here. For example, because Texas
has a different regulatory scheme for surface water and ground water, if you drill a ground water well and
put it into a water course, thaYs developed water, it's YOUR water, but the state has the right to make you
get a bed and bank authorization to convey that water in a water course. So, it could be a state water, it
could be developed water, or it could be a pollution discharge permit. Let me explain that briefly. As we
talked about earlier, the federal government has this program to issue an NTDS permit. Don't worry about
what it means, it's just what they call it. When you're going to discharge a pollutant from a point source
into any water in the United States, you have to get such a permit. Almost all states have become the
administrator of that program, and Texas has done this. So whenever the city wants to amend its
wastewater discharge permit, it goes to the TCEQ in Austin and gets what is called a QTDS permit, which
is a Texas version vs. the national version. IYs still done under this federal permitting program. A few
years ago, there was a case in the U.S. Supreme Court that brought'to the forefront the issue of whether
moving water from water body into another water body required a pollution discharge permit. Because
there are many cases that the water that is being moved is very different from the body it's being moved
into. An example would be... here's the case... New York City has all these reservoirs up in the Catskilts,
and it serves the whole city of New York. And in order to get it, they've got to move it. Sometimes they
move it in pipes, sometimes they move it in water courses. So New York City was moving some of its
water through a pipe and it dropped into a water course and it flowed down into another reservoir, where
it became the water for the water treatment plant. Well, this water course they dropped it into was
somebody's favorite fly fishing area. And the water they were moving in there had high as opposed to
very water where they had their fly fishing. And so they sued New York City, claiming they didn't have
the right to use this water because they didn't have a pollution discharge permit to do it. And the courts
said you're right, they're discharge pollutant thaYs not proceeding naturally, they're introducing it and you
got to get a permit for it. They sent the case back to the lower court to see how much New York City
ought to be fined for discharging this pollutant, and they got a big fine, $5 million. So they took it back on
appeal and said we want you to reconsider this decision about whether we need to get a permit, because
the EPA has issued some guidelines that says all water in the United States is part of a unitary body of
water and there is really no moving of water from one water course to another, and the courts said we
don't find what the EPA has done is persuasive. So I think that the situation we have right now is that as a
regular course of busiiness the regulatory agencies do not require pollution permits for moving water from
one place to another place even though it may contain different chemical characteristics, but anybody
who wants to go to federal court to get an order that says that requires a permit, you got to stop it until
~ ~~o o, 4 21
you get a permit, and you get fined for the pleasure of doing that.
So the State of Texas, to regulate that water from Oklahoma, could issue QTDS permit, can regulate
the pollutant content of it, or they could issue a water right permit, and when they issue a water right
permit, they're going to look at the water quality impact, they're going to look at the impact on the biology
of the receiving water, they're going to be concerned about whether they're introducing non-native
species into Lake Pat Mayse, and so there are mechanisms at the state levet that can provide a healthy
degree of assurance that those issues will be fully vetted before any Oklahoma water flows into Texas.
WhaYs going on right now, there's a lot of litigation going on between Texas political subdivisions and
Oklahoma about whether they can keep all the water tied up in Oklahoma, and so far the Texas
subdivisions are winning that litigation. And there are other cases that are nearly directly on point on this,
where states have tried to tie up all their water because they didn't want it going to some other state, and
the courts said, you know, this is interstate commerce, you can't do that. You can't just sit on that and
hoard it. If you've got a use for it, thaYs fine, but you can't simply say we're not going to sell Oklahoma
water in Texas. And I think that will be the outcome of that litigation. It may take several years to get
there, but I think that's going to be the outcome. So once thaYs over with, there will be are going to be
issues potentially about whether that water is compatible with the Texas receiving streams, etc.
I'm just telling you all the legal issues that I know exist here. I'm not trying to make it sound like a horror
story; these are simply the kind of things that lawyers work through in order to get permits and get legal
issues resolved. It may take years, if not decades, to work throgh all of this, but I can tell you the
metroplex and I'm not talking just about Irving the metroplex knows they have pressing needs for
water, and they hadn't got a lot of choices they can either try to build Marvin Nichols, they can go get
Toledo Bend water and pay all the energy costs of pumping it up hill, they can get that Oklahoma water,
or they can get a deal with Boone Pickens to move water out of the Ogalalla Aquifer out here. Those are
about the four big sources.
So, iYs a complex maze of legal issues, and I think the issue about the Oklahoma water is moving with
a fair degree of rapidity right now, fairly quickly headed toward some resolution. I don't think iYs out of the
question that at some point in time, whether it's the Upper Trinity Water District, whether iYs Irving,
somebody is likely to get their hands on some of that Oklahoma water, and to the extent that the City of
Paris has an interest in it, you have the potential to generate some revenue off of that, because Lake Pat
Mayse is situated in a very ideal spot with regard to being able to be an intermediate transport point for
that water.
Question: you're saying you don't see any stumbling blocks as far as moving that water from Oklahoma
into Texas?
JM: No, thaYs not exactly what I said. I said there are permitting processes that are available to the
State of Texas that could require those transfers of water being looked at under either water rights
provisions, or bed and banks provisions, or water quality provisions. I don't have a crystal ball thaYs clear
enough to tell you what those issues might be. Very seriously, big issues, an issue that is become of
increasing interest to the state and to the federal government, is the species issue. If there was some
non-native species, hydrilla or something thaYs in Oklahoma and they didn't want to have introduced in
Texas, they could simply say, "I'm sorry. You have a problem. Until you get control of that problem, we're
not taking your water." I'm not at all telling you that I know any such issues exist, but the issues are out
there.
Question: (inaudible)
Yes, if the Corps of Engineers is going to do something thaYs a major federal action, they're going to go
through the process. They're going to either do an environment assessment or if it has to be a
fullblown analysis they would do a??? impact statement. So they have a separate process with regard to
a Corps action. If y'all were to pursue the issue of raising the height of the dam, that probably would go
0 000043
through some type of review. Maybe a more abbreviated environmental assessment, maybe a full-
blown assessment.
Let me address No. 9: why would Irving offer Paris $200,000 to participate in studies when Irving could
do these on their own?
JM: That's a question I do not have a direct answer to. That would require speculation on my part. It
just makes sense for them to approach you in a friendly manner, saying, "We would like to do this, be our
partner." Because they'd have a hard as heck time trying to take your water from you, OK? So they're
trying to look for a partner and look for some way to work in cooperation with other people. That would be
my assessment of it. But only they know what their true motivation is. But to me it only makes good
business and political sense to try to find somebody who would participate in the study as a part of that
process. You'd be more likely to have some confidence that the study is being done in a fashion that
would address your needs. ThaYs all I can tell you about that, but thaYs my speculation.
No. 10, a very good question, and iYs basically whether iYs possible for Paris to structure a contract
with Irving in light of the existing contractual obligations of the City of Paris. This is a question that is
going to require a considerable amount of analysis concerning your contractual rights vis a vis the Corps
of Engineers, and what are your appropriative water rights vis a vis the State of Texas.
You have a large water right with the State of Texas. You have the right in total to 55 million gallons of
water a day of diversions from Lake Pat Mayse alone. ThaYs the equivalent of about 51,610 acre-feet a
year. That's a lot of water. You have contracts right now with Campbell Soup, Direct Energy, Lamar
County Water Supply District, and Lamar Power Partners, that totals 30.3 million gallons of water, or
about 34,000 acre-feet.
And so, that plus whatever water the city uses to run its own municipat supply system is the water
you're currently obligated to supply. So there's some amount of water over and above your current
contractual commitments, plus your own needs, that is clearly surplus water to your needs and would be
available for sale to Irving. The thing that complicates this is, many of your contractual obligations are not
nearly fully utilized. And so while you may have a entity that has a contractual right to 9,000 acre feet a
year, if you look at their last three, four or five years average, it may be 3,000 acre feet a year. So you
have a lot of under-utilized contractual water. There are clearly mechanisms by which you could sell that
water to Irving as long as that water sale to Irving was subordinate to your existing customers. And that
would require a fair amount of technical analysis about how much can you safely commit to Irving. And
when I say safely commit, iYs always going to be subordinate to your existing contractual arrangements.
But if you could do an analysis, and you could find out, if you looked at your last five years and you
worked with your customers in terms of what their future needs would be, you could find out how much of
your contractual obligations were surplus to the anticipated needs of the customer. And you could make
arrangements to sell that water to Irving, as long as you had the right to get that water back if it was truly
needed by your customers. And there are currently contracts structured like that in the state of Texas for
other courses. I've been involved in some of those. I know there is one between the Sabine River
Authority, which contracts to sell water to Greenville and Longview and a number of other smaller
communities, but that water is not fully utilized, so they have sold a portion of that water to the North
Texas Municipal Water District, subordinated to the rights of those existing customers. But they are
getting a revenue off of that sale to North Texas, as well as the revenue they have off contracts with
existing customers. So it is possible to structure something like that.
Question: (inaudible)
This is a technical question you want to have your engineers address for you, but I would submit to you
that because you have a storage reservoir, and you have a delivery system thaYs capable of ineeting
those peak demands, and because Irving is fixing to take that water and move it to another storage
OOUO4~1
reservoir, that you have a lot of flexibility provided to you in a sale of that sort because of the storage
that's available. Take Lamar Power, for example. They have an 8 mgd life on their current plant. If they
needed 8 mgd of water to meet that peak demand, iYs available for them. But on an annual average
basis, they use 3.36 mgd of water. They don't need 8 mgd times 24/7. And yet thaYs whaYs tied up in that
contract. And so I think that you'll find that there's a lot of flexibility in terms of being able to meet those
peak demands and still have access to that water on a long-term average basis, because you don't
necessarily have to deliver that water to Irving to meet that peak demand. Their system provides for
meeting peak demand but you need to deliver that water to them over an annual average basis, because
once it moves from Pat Mayse Lake into Cooper Lake, they've got it stored and they move it into the
metroplex and the rest of their system to meet their peak demand. IYs an engineering question, not a
legal question, but clearly from a contracting standpoint, you could seek to identify a base amount of
water that you could supply Irving based on your pure surplus water. You could supplement that base
amount with the amount that is reasonably available to you between the contractual obligations and the
needs of those customers. And then you could always reserve the right to bring that water back as
needed. But I don't even any of that implicates the peak demand issue, because you have the
infrastructure capable of ineeting those peak demands.
Either you have it or you could design for it.
Question: you'd also have to provide that when (inaudible), water would not be available to the City of
Irving?
JM: You certainly could do that. You may choose to do something like that.
Question: to eliminate the possibility of having to ration water because of the lake level?
JM: You could in essence design in a contract a ration scheme for them which included ultimately a
cutoff of delivery during certain circumstances, well in advance of any type of local rationing. So, again,
there's a lot of technical issues that would have to be reduced conceptionally to what you want to do, and
then abstract it into the contract, but clearly you could do those kind of things.
Question: Can you sell water to someone and keep them from selling it to someone else?
JM: If you're going to sell somebody your water, you can limit their use of that water however you see
fit. Most of the contracts now with industrial users, they can use it for industrial purposes, and that's it.
They can't go resell it to somebody else, or they can't build a different type plant and use it for that
purpose. You can choose to do that. You can choose if you want to, to put provisions in there that if he
resells the water, if he gets some premium on it you get some portion of that premium. These are clearly
negotiated transactions, and I can't tell you what a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree to, but
you can offer anything that you want to in regard to terms, conditions and limitations on their use of the
water.
OK, No. 12 the Paris contract with the Corps of Engineers. The contract you have with the Corps
identifies your ownership as 100 percent of the water between 415 msl and 451 msl. This is estimated to
contain 109,600 acre feet of storage after 100 years of sedimentation. Not as of the time of the contract,
but after 100 years of sedimentation. That number is derived after looking at 100 years of sedimentation.
So I would submit to you that a question to be raised about this, there's more capacity in this reservoir,
more yield in this reservoir, over the next 50 years until we get to 100 years after its creation. And so you
have both the sedimentation pool to look at, as well as the flood pool.
With regard to time frames and difficulties, I'll be real honest with you. I've not actually ever participated
in one of these reallocation studies directly myself, so I don't know what the timelines are. I know that the
Corps staff in Tulsa has met with your staff, and I know the Corps staff is very experienced with these
v UOU045
things and the Corps has done a number of these things. It's a very legitimate issue for you to inquire
into.
I can tell you right now everything that is relevant about the Corps contract. You have two different
contracts. The first one, and then the supplement, and those deal mostly with the issue of when you pay
them and what you pay them. The main thing is, you now have the right to 100 percent of the storage
space, between 415 and 451, and you have diversion rights to the extent that such rights are granted by
the Texas Water Commission or its successor, and so those issued the diversion permits to you.
You had the water rights shown on the lower half of this page, and I tried to give you this in both acre
feet per year. This is what confuses me. The impoundment right and your state water right is for 144,500
acre foot of water in Lake Pat Mayse. ThaYs obviously more than 109,600 acre feet you got in storage
between 415 and 451. And I don't think that includes the flood pool, so there's some question in my mind
as to whether they've already used the sedimentation pool in determining the yield of this project. One of
the things I would recommend you have your engineers do is review the yield calculations based on your
original water rights and see if it was done correctly and see if there's any more water you can get just on
a re-analysis of the yield calculation that was done.
I would note that all your water rights now are not both municipal and industrial. You are authorized to
use up to 20,000 acre feet out of 36,610 acre feet for annual industrial purposes in the Sulphur River
Basin in Lamar County. And part is municipal authorization that can be used outside the Red River Basin
for supplying small communities and rural customers in the Sulphur River Basin.
If you ever had occasion to readdress the water rights, I would suggest that you get those amounts
appropriated for both uses. I know the city of Marshall ran into a big problem when they were trying to
provide water to the energy power plant in Harrison County because they didn't have enough industrial
water rights, and they had to go switch the municipal to industrial, and they got caught in the spider's web
over issues of notice, and that case went all the way to the Supreme Court and after four or five years iYs
still not clear where they are. So the next time you have a chance to clean up, get your rights authorized
for both municipal and industrial I would suggest that you do that.
Question 14 is, when considering Pat Mayse Lake as a reservoir for increasing lake capacity or for a
storage pool, what regulatory restrictions or requirements have to be met and what studies and permits
are required? Does the potential effect on recreational use come into play under these considerations?
With regard to the Corps, making a decision to increase the elevation of the reservoir, that would
probably have to go through a full-blown environmental statement. I would tend to think that you're going
to have flooding. You probably have structures around the lake. If you raise the level, are you going to
flood any of those structures?
OK, question 15. Does the city have the right to impound water above elevation 451 or below elevation
415 for purposes of selling or redirecting it from normal downstream flow patterns?
No, your rights are between 415 and 451, under the Corps contract.
Next question, can the city pump from the flood pool or post spillway overflows for storage at other
reservoirs?
Well, think about it. You have a glass, and you have a straw in that glass, and you're drinking from the
middle of that straw, what's going on in the glass? The top of iYs coming down. Whenever there's water in
the flood pool, they need to get rid of that water anyway, because they're trying to keep that space open
in case they have a flood. They got gates open trying to pass that water, and that's one of these records
indicates there's a fair amount of water coming out of that reservoir. The other reason thaYs happening is
that you're not fully utilizing that conservation space, OK? You're not fully diverting and using all of your
water. If you were, the water elevation would be down and there would be more times when the flood
V 000046
storage is fully So from the standpoint of water, generally the use of it is considered to be the
conservation of it. And so, if you put your water to beneficial use, whether you're selling it to Irving or
using it locally or whatever, you're going to have a greater utilization of the conservation pool. And when
you're drawing water down and there's water in flood storage, you're really taking water from the
conservation pool, because thaYs where your pumps are, but whaYs happening is the top of the water
level is coming down, which is what they want to happen anyway. So the only limitation you have is the
diversion rights given to you by the state, the cap on how much you can divert.
Something I was talking about with your staff today, there is, I think iYs 86.5 cubic feet per second,
which is a lot of water, but thaYs the maximum diversion rate that you can have from the project. If you
want to take more than that, you're going to have to go in and amend the permit. If you want to take some
from another location, you're going to have to go in and amend the permit. So all of these limitations are
spelled out in your water rights permit.
Reeves Hayter: 86.5 cubic feet per second is not a new number, now. That's not a new limit. That IS 55
million gallons a day. It's the same number, just expressed in different units.
JM: OK, Question No. 16, does the contract for water rights between the Corps of Engineers and the
City of Paris allow for changes in the lake levels for additional holding capacity. For example raising the
dam height, dredging or acquiring additional flood plain for holding more water above the 451 foot
elevation?
It doesn't address that. It is silent on it. You'd have to negotiate that with the Corps. They'd have to go
through and check those boxes and work out the terms to do that.
No. 17, If the water rights have not been fully paid by the City of Paris, could another entity buy the
unpaid portion from the Corps of engineers and subsequently call the note?
JM: My understanding is the city is attempting to pay off its final payment to the Corps of Engineers
and so I don't think that's a problem. And even if you weren't in a position to pay it off, I've never heard of
a situation of the Corps relinquishing its rights to a third party and let them go foreclose on another. So I
don't think in the real world that that's a problem.
OK, the last three or four questions have to do with new sources of supply.
18. Who owns the water that exits the lake via the spillway?
It's the state's water, subject to the compact. So iYs going to require a new appropriation as long as iYs
in the state of Texas. I suspect when it hits the Red River, there is an issue, because generally the
southern boundary of the Red River is the border between Texas and Oklahoma. But this water is
handled via the compact, so I don't know for sure. I would suspect that appropriations on the Texas side
would get a permit from the State of Texas and on the Oklahoma side would get a permit from the State
of Oklahoma.
But iYs all subject to this compact. You have a minimum flow requirement to meet, and you have each
state can get no more than 25 percent of that total water. And I would submit to you, and I don't meet to
be harsh or judgmental about this, but there's not a lot of appropriations out of the Red River for municipal
use because of the CDS content. And it looked to me from the map that you're probably two or three
miles down Sanders Creek from Pat Mayse Lake until you enter the Red River, so the opportunity to pick
that water up would be preferable in that limited space if you felt that would be a beneficial thing to do.
But then the question is what are you going to do with it? You certainly not going to pipe it back into Pat
Mayse because it would flow back over
Going on to the next one, Question No. 19, at what point does the water exit the lake and become
00(l(147
effluent?
When it crosses the threshold of that dam, it ceases to be solely within the control of the State of Texas
and subject to the Compact.
OK, question No. 20. If it is determined that there is no excess water to sell, or if Paris enters into a
contract to sell a large quantity of water to the City of Irving or anyone else, all Pat Mayse water.....
Let me make a couple of general obligations: you have a wonderful source of water in Pat Mayse. And
so instead of selling all your water out of Pat Mayse, I think iYs very prudent to plan for your future growth
out of that Pat Mayse source. To the extent that you can develop alternate sources of water that may be
marketable and give you a return because of the revenue stream, I would look to do that and try to
capitalize off of those.
One of the most common ways these days that cities are developing new sources of supplies is
beneficial reuse of their treated effluent return flow. I know from talking with your staff today that you have
2 or 3 mgd of discharge out of your wastewater treatment plant. I know that that is situated in a place
where it may be possible to combine that with any water sold to Irving out of Lake Pat Mayse. And so that
would be one potential way to get revenue off of that resource.
Reeves Hayter: is that water controlled by the compact?
JM: no. The water you sell by contract to other parties, and they discharge after they use it, is subject
to reuse by the city. Because permit wise, it's still your water. I know little of the specifics, but if Lamar
Power Partners takes your water for cooling water and after use, they treat and discharge that water into
a water course, and there's some economic use of that water downstream, you should go seek a bed and
bank authorization to be able to reuse that water and sell it to a third party. A lot of cities are reusing their
effluent and other water for landscape irrigation purposes, if you have enough golf courses and other
things, so I would look to those kind of things to try to get economic benefit.
But for purposes of your planning, whatever transactions you're going to do with Irving or anyone else, I
would be looking to your longterm needs and your growth horizon and figure what amount of water you
need to reserve for yourself out of Pat Mayse Lake, and when you're trying to determine what's truly
surplus, I would look for some amount of reservation of that water. You can sell some of it to Irving with
some right to take it back, or sell it to somebody else with the right to take it back, but I would want to go
through some sort of engineering analysis, where you knew, here's what Paris' current water demands
are, here's what they are projected to be in 2060, and put something in in terms of what you think you're
going to need, because, you know, iYs a source thaYs virtually paid for. And so you want to use water as
an economic resource to generate revenue for the city and keep costs down, but at the same time you
want to be able to take advantage of the resources that you have developed. So just in the planning
process, try to look down the road as best you can as to what your needs are going to be, and take those
into account.
I tend to look at water as a purely economic issue. Water has a lot of value, and it's becoming more
valuable everyday. And so I know locally you probably look at it as a lot of different buckets, a lot of
different characteristics, but factor in the economic value to you and how it might work to your benefit over
the long term.
Question: (inaudible)
JM: You have to use the best crystal ball analysis of what your future needs are going to be. You can
structure that into a contract. You can start off selling to Irving 100 percent of your surplus, and 10 years
from now you could sell them 90 percent of your surplus. And then 80 percent. So you can tell them, we
have some water. There will be times we'll be needing some of that water back, and so you can have an
adjustment mechanism in the contract. I've even seen contracts where you tell them here's how much
water we think we can give you, and you can come and take this water with the reservation that if we
~ O00(146-
need it for our customers, our contractual obligations, we get it back, OK? And in the process, as time
goes by, we may learn that we actualiy have more surplus, And we can identify to you under the contract
that additional surplus and you can exercise the right of whether you want it or not, and if you want it, you
take it.
So, a well-written document can give you a lot of flexibility. It depends on the willingness of both parties
to live within the flexibility that you need. It can be as simple as you want it to be, or it can be as
complicated as you want it to be. What I'm trying to say to you, I think you need a good technical analysis
of how much water you're contractually obligated to provide to other parties, and how much you currently
use as a city, and how much you reasonably foresee needing as a city over your horizon. You may need
to have that last part of it short-staggered. How much will you need in 2020, 2030, etc. You can then take
that number and subtract it from your 55 mgd, and that amount is truly surplus, you don't have any plans
to use that water, OK? You can tell Irving, we can guarantee we can give you this amount of water, and
we think we can give you this under-utilized portion of our contract water. So if you look at all your
contracts and they total up to be 30.3 mgd, but over a long-term average, take the peak annual usages of
those customers over the last five years, you could multiply that by a factor, and tell Irving we think we
can get you that amount of water as surplus, because we haven't been using it. But we always reserve
the right that if something happens to change that pattern of use and we need to get it back, we have the
right to get it back. So from Irving's standpoint, there is a certain amount of water that is assured. there's a
certain amount of water that has a degree of probability that they're going to get, and then there's maybe
a third category of, as we learn more about our operations and our customer operations, maybe we can
negotiate with our customers about, can we reduce the contractual obligations to more correctly reflect
your usage patterns, you may free up more water that you can say we can give you this on a certainty
basis. And you could have a contractual mechanism that would allow you to offer that water for them to
accept that water, and it goes into a different category at a point in time.
What I am saying is, you can try to structure a contract that provides for near full utilization of resource
with flexibility as to who has first rights on it, and the city and the city's customers would always have that
first right on it, so from Irving's standpoint, they're going to have an interest in purchasing. They're going
to be willing to pay you more for that certain supply of water. They may be highly interested in this
probable supply of water, but because iYs probable and not certain, it might be worth less to them, OK?
Reeves Hayter: Another thing to remember there, is that we plan for our needs through 2060. If there is
a surplus and if the citizens want, we sell that to Irving. But we are only selling it to them through 2060. So
in 2060, we're not out of water. We get back all of the water we sold Irving, unless we want to sell it to
them again.
JM: You could start by saying we're going to sell you 100 percent of today's surplus plus this other
stuff, OK? And in a decade, we may cut it to 90, or 80, or 60, kind of rachet it down, because as you
grow, the amount of the water you can free up declines. So if you can be smart enough, and crystal ball
enough to tell me what your demands are going to be, I can write you a contract that will reflect that. But
the hard job is your job, OK? The hard technical questions are what your needs are going to be in 2020,
in 2030, in 2040, in 2050, in 2060. Y'all are going to have to make some assessments about that, and
you've got the benefit of your regional plan. You just need to have good assessment in terms of what your
demands are going to be, what your available supplies are, and how much you want to make available in
different buckets different categories of surplus. Some of it can be certain water, some of it can be
highly probable water, some of it can be if things happen we'll offer you more water. And there are ways
we can construct your contract language to accommodate that. I can help you see the issues and I can
work with the staff to do that, but these sort of things require a lot of analysis about your historic water use
patterns, a lot of discussion with your customers about what their needs are and well be, and so forth.
Reeves Hayter: They (Irving) are not contemplating a short-term contract, OK? (laughter)
~ 00 U049
JM: Anytime you pay $100 million for a pipeline, you're going to have a sufficient amount of water to
justify that cost.
-----It's 5:50 p.m., and Jim Mathews leaves to catch a plane back to Austin.-----
Reeves Hayter: Next week, officials with HDR Consulting will meet with us. If you have questions of
HDR Consulting, e-mail them to Shawn no later than Monday. That will allow our consultant to be with us
Thursday, June 5. Today, our agenda was very full with Mr. Mathews, and I expect our agenda next week
will be very full with the engineers' presentation. They're going to counsel us on any aspects of our study
that require engineering expertise. That would be the capacity of the lake, capacity of Lake Crook, the
future water use of our city. I would anticipate they would probably look at our population projections.
Shawn: This group specializes in water resources, so they will be looking at the full gamut of anything
out there related to potable water, non-potable water. Don't hesitate to ask any question. If you'll email
me, so I can cut and past them right in. I'm going to try to get them the questions sometime Monday
afternoon so they'll have time to look over them and be here Thursday to answer those questions. We
also are arranging for some folks from the Corps of Engineers to meet with us, on July 10. A lady by the
name of Jan Hotuddy is going to be here along with Mark Ellison, the guy over pat Mayse Lake and
several lakes in Oklahoma. Jan is a hydrologist. An expert on water re-allocation, etc.
-Q000.llr
MINUTES
WORK SESSION
LAKE PAT MAYSE STUDY COMMITTEE
107 E. KAUFMAN STREET
PARIS, TEXAS
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2008
Call the meeting to order.
Chairman Hayter called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. City Clerk Janice Ellis called roll.
Members present were Herb Campell, Dennis Chalaire, Reeves Hayter, John Kruntorad, Rick
McDougall, Gene McWaters, Michael Moffitt, Sharron Nabors, Jim Noble, Richard Quarles, and
Dan Smith. Ex-Officio Members present were Renee Harvey, Jim Kays, Ray Ball, and Bob
Campell. Ex-Officio members absent were Byron Billman and Frank Wright. Alternate member
Joan Mathis was absent.
Also, present were city staff Shawn Napier, City Engineer; Doug Harris, Interim Public
Utilities Director; and Janice Ellis, City Clerk. Darrell Cline, the city's water rate consultant was
in attendance.
2. Citizens forum.
No one spoke.
Question and Answer session with HDR Engineering. (See Exhibit "A" attached)
Chairman Hayter introduced Ken Choffel, Corey Shockley, and Sonny Kretzschmar. Ken
Choffel addressed questions presented by the Committee.
Mr. Choffell said potential obstacles facing Irving concerning the transfer of water from
Oklahoma to Texas included environmental issues, water quality, and physically transporting the
water across Red River. One question proposed was what was an acceptable recreational level for
the lake. Mr. Choffell told the Committee it depended on the type of recreation and that everyone
had a different opinion. Another question asked was how many droughts were projected in a 100
year period. Mr. Choffell estimated that once every 100 years there could be a five year drought and
maybe two or three times over 100 years there could be a three year drought. He said if rainfall fell
short by 4 inches a year for the next 50 years the effect of the current water supply safety margins
for daily use would depend on if during the drought water came from stored water or running water.
Mr. Choffell said they would be looking at probably two years in duration in determining
whether a more favorable allocation for the conservation pool is possible. He said some issues
included wildlife, the state park and the cost which would be determined by the Corps of Engineers.
He also said that current capacities would need to be looked at to evaluate potential system operation
Page 1 of 2
- 0 0 (1 r9, 1.
of Lake Pat Mayse and Lake Crook to improve combined yield of both parties.
Another question raised was the evaluation of potential uses for return flows of raw water
sold to Lamar Power. Mr. Choffell said they would need to obtain additional data prior to making
a determination.
Mr. Choffell informed the Committee that he did not believe there was much ground water
and there had been a lot of opposition every time that issue comes up.
Chairman Hayter inquired who would receive HDR's report. Mr. Choffell said their report
would be going to the Committee. He said they would be reviewing and evaluating the City's water
contract. There was discussion about two different methods in evaluating sediment in Pat Mayse.
Chairman Hayter said he was not comfortable with estimates.
Ray Ball asked Ken Coffel if there was information he thought was important that the
Committee had not inquired about. Mr. Coffel emphasized constructing a contract to protect the
interest of Paris. He referenced the amount of water it would take to justify building of a pipeline,
interruptible amount of water during wet and dry years, the city's future use, the four big water
contracts, commitment for a specified number of years and review prior to expiration. He also
suggested during the term of the contract, the entities work together to bolster supply from other
sources.
4. Review and discuss the briefing books.
Shawn Napier presented the Committee Members with additional handouts for their briefing
books.
Possible future agenda items.
It was a consensus of the Committee to count this meeting as a regular meeting and next meet
on June 26"'
6. Adjournment.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Herb
Campbell and seconded by John Kruntorad, motion carried unanimous. The meeting was adjourned
at 6:10 p.m.
4~
Approved this~~~ day June, 008.
Reeves Hayter,
Page 2 of 2
- 0O0(l5`'
~
Questions for HDR Engineering
l~ Given HDR's recent experience would you please discuss the (potential) obstacles facing
Irving concerning the transfer of water from Oklahoma to Texas, specifically to Pat Mayse
Lake.
~ Given HDR's knowledge of current Paris waste streams (industrial waste, the waste water
> from the city's waste treatment facility, etc.) can you give your opinion concerning the
feasibility of capturing those waste streams for sale, i.e., is there enough waste water to be
worth pursuing at nominal sale rates?
If surface water from other East Texas counties, e.g., Red River County, Bowie County, etc.,
~ are available what are the impediments in securing such water if those counties do not
have a recognized water control board? Is HDR aware of any municipality which has sold
bonds to construct transport facilities to transfer such waters?
~ What is the current status of the TWDB water availability model that would be applicable
~ to Pat Mayse? At one time there were some problems with the Red River Basin model, and
it was being reworked.
5) During a normal rainfall year (42 how many days does water flows over the spillway?
On a normal daily basis how much water flows into Pat Mayes vs. City drawn down? (i.e.
net gain or loss) ,
~ At the end of the 2067 (100 yr.) useful life of Pat Mayes, after fully silted according to
projection, how many gallons of water will be available daily?
~ What is the acceptable recreational level currently, how far below overflow is that? .
~ In a projected 100 yr life span of the lake, what is the total number of years figured for
excessive (over 42 of rainfall?. In that same 100 year projection, how many droughts
years are projected, 1 yr-3 yr, and 1 yr - 5 yrs ?
~ 6 If rainfall just fell short by 4 inches (10%) a year (from 42" to 38 for the next 50 years
how would that effect the current water supply safety margins for daily use?
From Jim Mathews:
During yesterdays meeting of the Lake Pat Mayse study committee I suggested that the
committee request the City's engineering consultants to evaluate strategies that could
potentially increase the yield of Lake Pat Mayse or otherwise increase the amount of water
available for sale. Although I described this as primarily an engineering exercise, I was
asked to identify issues that could be evaluated. My suggestions are as follows:
Exhibit "A"
6-5-2008
vwnf-191
1. Reevaluate the firm annual yield of Pat Mayse Reservoir in order to determine
feasibility of increasing authorized diversions. Some of the existing information may
need to be reconciled. Examples include:
a. Certificate of Adjudication 02-4940 authorizes the impoundment of
124,500 acre-ft and diversions totaling 61,610acre-ft (55.Omgd).
b. The City's Corps of Engineers contract identifies the conservation pool
as the space between 415ms1 and 451ms1 and states that this is
estimated to provide 109,600acre-ft of storage after 100 years of
sedimentation. See Exhibit A to contract.
c. Region D Plan (Table 1.10) identifies the conservation pool as
124,500acre-ft and authorized diversions as 59,750acre-ft.
2. Review the Corps of Engineers' calculations used to establish sediment pool,
conservation pool, and flood pool in an effort to determine whether a more
favorable allocation for the conservation pool is possible.
3. Evaluate feasibility and cost-benefits of raising the height of the dam at Pat Mayse
Reservoir. The costs/benefits analysis should include evaluation of potential liability
due to changes in the release of flood flows.
4. Evaluate potential system operation of Lake Pay Mayse and Lake Crook to improve
combined yield of both projects.
5. Evaluate potential reuse of return flows. Options include:
a. Combine City's wastewater return flows with raw water that could be
sold to the City of Irving.
b. Evaluate potential uses for return flows of raw water sold to Lamar
Power. Options include downstream sale of discharge through bed and
banks permit or redirecting return flows to Lake Crook or Pat
Mayse watershed.
You should also ask the engineers to identify other potential evaluations that could be
conducted.
6-5-2008
- D~~~(';54i
Paris Public Library Advisory Board
Regular Meeting Minutes
21 May 2008,4 p.m.
The Paris Public Library Advisory Board held its regular monthly meeting Wednesday afternoon, 21 May 2008,
in the Library gallery with Chairman Bill Kennedy calling the meeting to order. Other board members attending
were Eddie Poole, Hilda Mallory, Deborah Hatley, Debbie Anderson, Audrey Lakes, Linda Vandiver, and Fran
Neeley. Library Director Priscilla McAnally also attended as did Friends of the Library co-cha.ir Amanda
Green.
Minutes from the previous meeting were approved with the following corrections:
1} The spelling of Shona Harris' na.me was conected
2) TCIM was changed to Utility Masters
The City Council has restructured committee terms. All committee members' terms will now expire in April.
All members of the current Advisory Board will be re-appointed.
NETLS is underwriting a demographic study of Paris by Civic Tech. This should be a useful tool for the library.
The Summer Reading Program will be recognizing its SOth anniversary as a part of the Texas State Library
Program.
Library patrons now have access to two new databases - Texas Historical Newspapers may be accessed from
the patrons' homes, and Morningstar Investment Resources may be accessed from the library computers.
It was noted in the budget report tha.t 52.386% of the materials budget has been spent. The statistical report
reflected increases in both circulation and library visits over last year.
The Friends reported $SQO in new memberships through the spring luncheon. They will be helping with a
photography workshop for the children's summer programs.
The library 2008-2009 budget request includes reclassifying Judy Vickers as a supervisor. The total budget is
up about $12,000 most of which is in the minor apparatus line item. The increase is for new computers.
Building and Grounds request reflects a$3000 increase.
Ms. McAnally distributed copies of the revised Patron Conduct Policy to be reviewed and voted on at the next
meeting.
There being no further business on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Submitted by
Debbie Anderson, Secretary
000051