NEWS — County judge proposes alternate route for second bridge

By Karen Gleason

The 830 Times

County Judge Lewis G. Owens Jr. has proposed another alternate route connecting the city’s proposed site for a second international bridge with area highways.

Owens proposed the route in a letter he sent Tuesday to Mayor Al Arreola and each of the other six members of the Del Rio City Council. Owens said he also sent a copy of the letter to City Manager Shawna Burkhart and to Assistant City Manager Manuel Chavez.

Owens provided a copy of the letter to The 830 Times.

The letter reads as follows:

“Dear Mrs. Shawna Burkhart,

“This letter serves to inform you that Val Verde County maintains its position that a potential southern route remains the most advantageous option for the proposed second international bridge serving Del Rio and Acuña. However, with the assistance of the County Engineer, we have identified a possible northern route that may be practical and impact the least number of residents within the county.

“It is important to note that this proposed site has not yet been formally presented to Commissioners Court and, therefore, has not been approved. The County looks forward to working towards a solution that will benefit all members of the community while minimizing negative impacts on the people and places we hold dear.

“Best regards, Lewis G. Owens Jr., County Judge, Val Verde County.”

To the letter, Owens attached a map showing the track of the proposed route, which lies farther west than the four routes previously proposed by RRP Consulting Engineers, the company the city has hired to design the bridge and its connector routes, as well as carry out the environmental and other studies needed for its permitting and construction.

The route proposed by Owens would join U.S. Highway 90 near its intersection with Spur 349, which connects the highway with Amistad Dam.

Owens spoke further about the proposal for the alternate route and his letter to city officials in an interview with The 830 Times Friday.

He said in 2023 county commissioners court voted not to support any of the proposed routes connecting the bridge site and Highway 90.

“The only thing (we voted) to support was if the (second) bridge was built south of the bridge we have now. The city has continued to move forward with the positioning of the (proposed second) bridge where it’s at, north of the existing bridge,” Owens said.

“Initially, the county was part of (the city’s efforts to construct a second bridge), probably since 2009 or 2010, up until 2015, 2016, when there was a decision made by the city in an open council meeting, that they were going to move forward by themselves. So they have,” he said.

Owens said there have been concerns with the routes proffered by the city.

“One of them, at the very beginning, in 2022, was a route to go down Las Brisas Boulevard, just because it would affect so many people. The overpass over U.S. Highway 90 was built to connect to the second bridge, but by 2022, there was so much growth (in that area), that really, that’s no longer feasible, as far as the county’s concerned,” Owens said.

He said, “From here on out, I’m giving you the county judge’s opinion, not that of commissioners court. So we’d given – County Commissioner Pct. 3 Beau Nettleton and me – had looked at several other routes and presented them to the city. And these conversations kept on, and then there were no conversations, as the movement went on.

“Then (the city’s consultants) presented two or three

other routes that, one of them (joined Highway 90) at the Agua Vista Subdivision, which was just ridiculous, because it’s an area of residential growth and now you’re going to put a commercial development right in front of it.

“Another route (joined the highway) right in front of Lorina’s Cantina, more or less in that area, but again, you’re still in an area where you have a lot of growth, residential growth that you’ll be affecting,” the county judge said.

Owens also said a resident of the area between the proposed bridge site and Highway 90 has said there is a cavern on his property with water running through it, which may be part of the San Felipe Springs recharge zone.

Owens said he tried to take all of those concerns into consideration in developing the alternate route he has proposed to the city.

“This is something I’ve come up with, listening to input from other individuals and Commissioner Nettleton, one of the routes he had presented to the city at one point, (joins the highway) in more or less the same area (as mine). So in looking at it, I thought this was going to be a good route. It is going to affect people. There’s nothing out there, no matter where you draw it, that’s not going to, but where it comes out to join U.S. 90, the federal government and the state own the property around that, so you’re not going to affect people where it comes out,” Owens said.

He said the route he proposed will affect the homes of “four or five people.”

“One of the other concerns that individuals have repeatedly brought up is that you’re going to have materials on these trucks that could be hazardous, so the railroad has hazardous materials traveling on it all day long, so I thought, well, we’ll just put the route next to the railroad, so they would be close together going down one path, and we try not to affect the recharge zone (cavern) that has been brought up since at least 2022,” Owens said.

Owens said he has had several phone calls about why he decided to take it on himself to present the route and not first bring it to commissioners court for a formal vote.

“We’ve all listened to our outside counsels. I thought it was prudent. I thought it was necessary to move forward with something and try to get out in front of it. I didn’t want to take a vote yet because it just wouldn’t be fair to the commissioners, in my opinion, because of the way they’ve voted to keep (the bridge site and connecting routes) south (of the existing bridge). I didn’t want them to go out and take a vote on this and then the city not consider it.

“We’re going to stir up another hornet’s nest in my opinion. If the city’s not going to consider it at all, then why go through the process of aggravating everybody all over again,” he said. 

Owens said as of Friday morning, he has had no response to the letter from anyone at the city.

“I’ve not received a single phone call, text message or email from any of the council members, the city manager, assistant city manager, no one from the city, and I think they’ve been told to leave me alone. Part of the process, and this needs to be explained, because I don’t think they get it at the city, and it isn’t because council doesn’t want to get it. I think they’re being led down the wrong road,” Owens said.

He explained: “Anything having to do with a county road, unless you have county approval to do something with it, you don’t end up with it. The city can’t end up with it. You can’t go out there; you’re going to have to condemn it, and at that point, how long is it going to take to go through this process? One, two, three years? We were told by our attorneys to be prepared for a three- to five-year battle, and the money that I’ve set up isn’t enough, to put more money in the kitty, and we already have $200,000 set aside for it,” Owens said.

“The other thing (the city) needs to look at is that they’re working with developers out there, and they’re being real secretive about it, and I want this to be part of the record. They’re being real secretive about it, and I’d like to know what they’re promising to these developers in order to end up with that land?” he said.

Owens again said he has very rarely seen city elected officials or administrators at county meetings and expressed his opinion that a number of problems and issues in which the city and the county find themselves on opposite sides of the table could be resolved by better communication.

He pointed to a recent council meeting he attended, during which, after Owens rose to speak to the council, Mayor Al Arreola did not allow him to speak, “and that’s his right; it’s his meeting.”

Owens added, “But that goes to show that they’re not willing to have a conversation. I tell them all the time; I think a lot of this, we can get past it, and I’m not saying we’d agree, but we could get past it, if we’d have a conversation, but you can’t find anybody at the city with any type of damn authority that wants to have a conversation.

“I’m looking at it from a couple of different aspects: how many people is it going to affect or not affect, and then, too, what’s this whole project going to end up costing? You’re going to promise developers utilities. The city’s going to promise developers utilities in order to end up with land, so you can’t give them utilities that are worth more than the damn land’s worth. You can’t do it.

“You can’t go in there and use – and I’m going to say my road, because I’m the figurehead of the county – my road without commissioners court’s permission. You’re going to have to condemn it. I don’t care which attorney or who you’re talking to at the city, they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about because they’re going to have to condemn the road, unless TxDOT steps in and says we’re going to help the city with this road, which I don’t see them doing because it’s not their fight right now. I’m not saying they can’t, I just saying why would they want to?” Owens said.

He said he believes the city and the county need to talk about the city’s plans for the second bridge.

“That’s the biggest problem, is that the city and the county, when it comes to the bridge, are not having a conversation. You can’t use the road. It’s just that simple. You’re going to have to sue us. You’re going to have to condemn the road and we will be in a fight.

“I’ve heard comments where if the county wants to move the route, they’re going to have to bring money to the table. The money that I’m bringing to the table is by not suing you, and the money that you’re going to save and I’m going to save that comes out of the same taxpayers’ pocket.

“I keep coming back to conversation. We’re not having any conversations, and . . . I don’t like confrontation, I really don’t, but I don’t shy from it. . . I don’t know if we can resolve this, but I believe we can come closer to a solution if we would have a conversation,” Owens said. 

The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com.