WESLACO — Othal Brand Jr. was in the hot seat on Monday.
The president of Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 3 took questions from state legislators about the district’s acrimonious relationship with the city of McAllen and whether it even needs to exist at all.
Brand told the Texas House Committee on Natural Resources that the district is a reliable provider of water for the community, addressed the rates it imposes on the city and fought back accusations of a lack of transparency in their board elections.
“I have no desire, and our board has no desire, other than to be servants of the community that we serve,” Brand told the legislators who held a hearing in Weslaco on Monday.
He argued the district saves the city money, time and infrastructure.
District 3 was created in 1921 to serve the agricultural needs of the city, but McAllen has been largely urbanized since then.
Under questioning, Brand said about 35% of the district’s water goes to farmers, but more than 90% of its revenue comes from the city of McAllen.
The city, however, accuses the water district of unfairly raising its water rates and filed a lawsuit against it in May.
The McAllen Public Utility purchases raw water from that district and three others — Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 1, Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2 and United Irrigation District.
Brand told committee members that the rates his district charges and those charged by the other districts that serve McAllen wasn’t an apples to apples comparison.
Unlike the other districts, District No. 3 charges for both the water and the delivery of that water.
However, the city disputed that through testimony from Mark Vega, the general manager of the McAllen Public Utility.
“The other three districts have been extremely reliable of delivering water to us — United Irrigation District, District 1, District 2 have been extremely reliable,” Vega said. “How that’s not apples to apples, it is beyond me.”
Vega added that the other districts that provide water to the city charge an average of $60 per acre foot, while District No. 3 charges $113.96 per acre foot.
He also pointed out that while the city has an adversarial relationship with Brand’s district, the city has never had problems with any of the other districts.
“Things serve a purpose for a time. That’s just the natural progression — especially for a growing city like McAllen and a growing county like Hidalgo County,” Vega said, arguing that District No. 3 had become obsolete. “Because you existed 100 years ago doesn’t mean you should 100 or 200 or 300 years later in my opinion.”
The legislators also pressed Brand about the water district’s elections — focusing on who can run for a position on the board and who is eligible to vote.
Brand said the district compiles its own list of voters by taking a list provided by the Hidalgo County Elections Department and whittling it down to those who reside in the district’s jurisdiction in accordance with its maps.
Brand went over the process to explain why the district had not responded to a public information request seeking a voter list. He said district staff are typically not able to finish refining the list until five or six days before an election.
“It’s not something we like,” Brand said about the process. “We would like something more definitive, but we can only move as fast as the county gives us the list.”
Brand’s testimony before the committee follows last year’s passage of Senate Bill 2185.
The bill initially sought to dissolve the district but, in the end, only set new requirements for it.
The new legislation required that the water district’s board establish an education program for its directors to review the history of the water district, its statutory authority, duties and responsibilities, the applicable laws, any legal developments and ethics policies.
It also required the district to establish a searchable online database of its expenditures.
Both of the bill’s authors — state Rep. Terry Canales, D-Edinburg, and state Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, D-McAllen — took part in questioning Brand and the other witnesses during Monday’s hearing.
Afterward, Canales said his primary take away was that the election process for the water district was “extremely flawed.”
“There seem to be some things that we can fix immediately, but it also seems there were some fatal flaws that are going to require a lot more than a hearing,” Canales said. “And we’re going to have to have a more comprehensive review of the electoral process and find solutions to make it fair.”
Canales said taking legislative action is a last resort and will instead make proposals to the water district to resolve some of the issues raised.
“But if we don’t have a fast enough response — yes, undoubtedly, we will file legislation,” he said.
