By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
Val Verde County Commissioners Court voted unanimously Monday to investigate the
possibility of a county-wide referendum on whether or not area residents want a second
international bridge and where that bridge should be placed.
The court voted following statements by County Judge Lewis G. Owens Jr. that he
believes the city of Del Rio’s plans for a second bridge need to go before voters in
November.
But Owens also said he believed the need for a referendum is an indictment of the city’s
and county’s elected leaders’ inability to reach consensus on the city’s plans for a second
bridge and the routes connecting it to area highways.
The court took action during a special term meeting under an agenda item to discuss and
possibly take action on issues pertaining to the second bridge.
Owens told the court, “I was hoping we would have a discussion, that the two entities
(county and city) would have a discussion on the second international bridge and the
position of that bridge. You all know, two years ago, I was the only one who voted to
keep the bridge location north. We took another vote in January, and myself and another
commissioner voted to leave the bridge north, and the rest of the court voted not to
support a bridge north but to support it if it was south of the bridge we have now.
“We just could not come to an agreement or to have a conversation as to where to build
it, and then Jan. 28, I received a letter on the position or the circumstances the city was in
when it came to water and wastewater and that they needed $48.5 million and. . . the
court has (previously) instructed the county judge to send a letter to our federal partners
and state partners, which I had not done, hoping to have a conversation. That did not
happen,” Owens said.
The county judge said he has sent a letter to the county’s federal and state elected
representatives, voicing the county’s opposition to a new bridge northwest of the existing
bridge and said again he believes the city needs to first deal with its urgent water and
wastewater infrastructure needs.
Owens added, “I’m not a big fan – and this is going to come out wrong no matter how I
say it – we’re elected officials, and we should be able to put on our big-boy pants and get
shit done with the other entities. We should be able to have the conversations. We should
be able to come to the table, whether it includes screaming or whatever, but at the end of
it, you should be able to come up with a decision. We should be able to move forward.
“One of the things that was posed to me this weekend was how about an election, and I
told them that was something that had been brought to this court before. I’m not a big fan
of that, because when you have two entities or any other entities where you have elected
officials, their job is to be able to come together and make things work, okay?
“So we have an election in November, and I would ask the court to see if they’re willing
to do this. Again, I’m not a big fan of this, but when you have two entities who can’t
agree, and you’re fixing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money out
of the same pocket in order to fight this, there has to be a better way, and we can’t come up with a decision, which is sad, and I’m not putting the blame on the city. It’s both the
county and the city,” Owens said.
He said he would like the court to direct County Attorney David Martinez to research a
possible November referendum and County Clerk Esther Chapoy to research the timeline.
Commissioner Pct. 1 Kerr Wardlaw asked if the city would be obligated to move the
location of the bridge if the results of the election showed voters wanted it placed other
than where the city has proposed.
Owens replied, “I guess the first option would be bridge or no bridge. . . and then maybe
another option north or south, where people have a right to vote, because those that
believe there needs to be another bridge, maybe another option.”
“It just would not make any sense to have something voted down by the citizens of Val
Verde County and the citizens of Del Rio and then still move forward with the project. That, to me, you’re not doing what the citizens who have put you in office want,” Owens
said.
Owens said he wanted to see if this was something the court wished to pursue and, if it
did, to discuss it again in a month.
Commissioner Pct. 4 Gustavo “Gus” Flores said, “I would support us going through that
process. I think, in all fairness to the constituents of the city of Del Rio and Val Verde
County, that would be right way to solve this problem. Let the people decide if they want
a second bridge or not. I think that’s a great idea.”
“Does anybody else have any other comments?” Owens asked.
“I’m all for it,” Commissioner Pct. 3 Fernando Garcia said.
“Again, it pains me to say this, because we’re elected officials. We should be able to
come up with something. If we run out to the citizens every time we end up hitting a wall
and can’t come up with a solution that works for the majority, I think we’ve failed. I
really do, and that’s the way I feel right now,” Owens added.
Owens said on Friday he went to eat at a local restaurant and area residents sitting at five
different tables came to speak to him “and none of the five tables support a bridge, none
of the people there.”
Owens added, though, he believed “at some point, we’re going to need” a second
international bridge.
Owens then asked Flores to put his comments in the form of a motion.
Flores said, “I will make a motion, judge, that we investigate going out for an election in
November and let the people from the city of Del Rio and Val Verde County decide on a
second bridge.”
Martinez said the motion should be “ordering the county clerk’s office and the county
attorney’s office to research to legally bring a proposition or two propositions to the
November election.”
Flores said he would add that to his motion.
Garcia gave the second.
Wardlaw said he would like to make sure the results of the election would be binding.
“It can’t be binding,” Owens said, and Martinez said he would research that issue as well.
“We can’t bind the city,” Garcia said.
Wardlaw noted “if the city digs its heels in” after the election, “we’re still in the same
spot we are in right now.”
“But there would be a message sent,” Martinez said.
Owens noted three members of the court will run in primaries next spring and several city
council members are up for election next year, “so there’s a message to be sent.”
“And the citizens again get to decide who sits here and who sits on council. It’s pretty
simple. If you don’t like who’s sitting here, you get rid of them, and if you don’t like
who’s sitting on council, you get rid of them,” Owens said.
Garcia again said the election on a proposed second bridge would not bind the city to any
future action.
Martinez said the election “would send a message to Austin and Washington as well.”
“It’s the people’s right to make that decision,” Flores added.
Owens again said he had “hoped it would not come to this, for the simple reason we’re all
elected officials, and we should be able to come together and make a difference, but it
didn’t happen.”
The court voted unanimously to approve Flores’ motion to investigate the possibility of
holding the county-wide referendum.
Reach the writer at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com
