SUZANNE SCOTT
July 30, ~908
San Antonio,: Texas
Martha Doty Freeman, Interviewer
San Antonio River Authority Oral History Project, Phase II
This is Martha Doty Freeman. The date is July 30'h, 2008. I'm interviewing Suzanne Scott
as part of the San Antonio River Authority's Oral History Projecj Phase II The interview is
taking place in San Antonio at the River Authority headquarters.
Give me some background information.
I was born in New Orleans. My family is from here,. tftr mom and dad grew up in San
Antonio, both of them. My mom is an only child, and my dad was an only child, and they
met here in San Antonio. And then my father got a job that took him to New Orleans, and I
was born there. I have two older brothers. And then my mom and my dad got divorced, and
my mom moved back here because, of course, her family was here. So I've grown up here in
San Antonio my whole life since then.
Where 'd you go to school?
I went to - grew up on the j outh J ide of San Antonio, I went to elementary school at Charles
C. Ball and then ~iddle School and then Highlands High School, so a real good
,.South %ide girl. Then after high school, I went to Texas Tech University and studied
advertising/public relations.
How did you choose that?
I wanted to go as far away from San Antonio as I could without paying out-of-state tuition,
so that was why I chose Tech.
How did you choose your focus of study?
I chose my focus of study because my mom did a lot of public relations-type work. She
worked for the City of San Antonio, and to me it just seemed interesting to - I liked
journalism and writing and that sort of thing, so I felt like that may be an area that I would be
interested in. So when I got to Tech, they have a pretty extensive mass communications
department is what it was under, and as I started looking into that college a little bit more and
had other friends that were going there, they have a pretty good reputation in that area. So I
started in that college thinking that "We'll see what happens. Maybe I'll shift over to
business or something." But I ended up liking it, so I stayed, and it was a good combination
sort of between the creative side and the writing side. So it was enjoyable for me.
Graduated from Tech in '85 and then came back to San Antonio and got- my first job was
working fo;~ at that time it was called ;be Southwest Craft Center, it's now the Southwest
School of .AJ !':: Crai( and I did their public relations work. They have a lot of art classes, so
I helped pro~ the art classes and that kind of thing. Worked there for a while and then
had an opportunity to move to go to VIA Metropolitan Transit. They were doing a big
downtown program, it was called TriParty,~~a.rtY[project, which was a whole redo of the
downtown area with bus lanes, and they put all the pavers in the downtown streets if you' J 1
remember that project. So I did public informatio~or tha~ project. So I guess I moved over
to VIA in '87 and then stayed at VIA ,..I g~e~ unti~ ~And I moved through the ranks
(} there_ I mean, I started with that project and then moved in to do more oftheir kind of
intergovernmental relations, worked a lot with the board. Eventually when I left there, I was
supervising all of our outreach, community outreach, research, trustee relations,
intergovernmental relations. It was a pretty big department there.
And then I left VIA and went to work in the private sector for a little while for a company
that was doing advertising of restaurants on the River Walk. And I did that for a couple of
years and realized when I was doing that I felt like I missed being in the public sector; I
wanted to get back to being in the public sector. So I went back and goifmaster's in Yrban
Bdministration from Trinity University, and I received that degree in ' 97. And then from
then on, I went back to - I went to Bexar County, worked at Bexar County. Well, during the
process of getting my master's degree, I got a job at Bexar County and worked with the
{) commissioners court, did strategic planning, project development. I developed their whole
capital improvement project program to review capital projects.
And that's how I came to know the San Antonio River Authority. Because the River
Authority at that time was coming to the jounty and asking the ,iounty to get involved in the
San Antonio River Improvements Project, which of course it's now known as. Then it was
not as comprehensive as it is today. But Steve Ramsey came over to -and Fred Pfeiffer at
the time-came over to Bexar County and asked the commissionerl court to consider putting
money into these improvements on the San Antonio River.
So I was in that process then, and I worked for Bexar County for about four years and during
that time had a lot of interaction with Fred and Steve Ramsey and then Greg Rothe when he
came on board because they were doing a lot of negotiations with Bexar County at the time,
not only as it related to the beginnings ofthe San Antonio River Improvements Project but
also revisiting a big agreement that we had with Bexar County called - at that time it was the
1999 Amendatory Contract. So we were very involved in a lot of meetings.
Were you one of the primary contact people?
Yes, I was, and actually had seen a lot of the things from the Bexar County side as it related
to the River Authority and what Bexar County's impression of the River Authority was at the
time. And Bexar County was going through a shift in how they were starting to view their
fiduciary responsibilities over the flood tax. And as I'm sure you've learned through other
interviews, the way that it was at that time is all the flood tax that Bexar County collected
WI'-'
just came over to the River Authority. ~rt of all - big sum. The Bexar County
~ommissionerd t'ourt really did not get very involved at all in determining how that money
was used. That all just was under the domain of the River Authority.
Well, my boss Mar~ at the time felt like-he was the budget officer for the county
and felt like that was not really a good representation. They were setting a tax rate at Bexar
County for a particular amount of money, and that money was coming over to the River
Authority, and there really wasn't accountability on how that money was being used, and
there wasn't really transparency in getting approval of the various projects that SARA used
the money for. And Marcus wanted to clean that up and make sure that there was a lot more
accountability, so that's why we started the process of going through that amendatory
contract.
And it was at a time when SARA was also going throu~ a transition in general managers
between Fred Pfeiffer and Greg Rothe .. lli1f was a ~ion at first because Fred
believed- and I'm sure you've learned from the interviews \\jth himol.. the River Authority
helped Bexar County get that flood tax institutionalized; it goftassed through the voters in
1\.
the) 50s. It was really a lot of the River Authority that pushed that initiative forward. And so
that relationship had been going on for a long time, and again, this is the late )90s at this
point. frut the county - and the whole dynamics of change in politics and having more
accountability to the taxpayer, it was just the times.
And it was not really -there w~me criticisms at the time of the control that the River
Authority had over that money. And when Bexar County wanted to start having a little bit
more transparency of how that money was used, SARA was a little resistant because it was
sort oflike opening up their books now, and anyone's a little bit sensitive to that. Not that .
the River Authority was doing anything wrong or incorrect; it was just the whole idea of hav¢ ~
another entity come in and get in your business, which was not welcomed by the River
Authority.
So when I was on Bexar County's side, I saw all that but also was impressed with the
mission of the River Authority. And knowing how important water was, knowing how
important the river is to this community, I was very excited and energized by the River
Improvements Projec)given the fact that I was a ,South $ider, knowing how the river had
been channelized and how it had been taken - really taken away from that community and
given- because I had heard stories my whole life about people that would go and fish in the
river., iud of course it was channelized by the time I was growing up in that community, but
was very familiar with it.
And then also we had just bad the flood of 1998 and a lot of flooding throughout the
community, a lot of folks lost their property, it was very devastating. The River Authority
started getting involved more and more in trying to get the founty and everybody to sort of
take this holistic look at how we were looking at flood control. The j,ounty and SARA and
the fity created a Citizens Oversight Committee to look at how we could improve our
approach at managing flood control. And I was the staff member from Bexar County that
worked on that initiative, so I was sort of working from Bexar County on the River
Improvements Project, and I was also working with Bexar County on the flood control areas.
So this would have been the late )90s?
Yes. This was - I stayed there until - I came over here in 2000, so for those years that I was
at Bexar County, again, I had a lot of interaction with the River Authority and worked on a
lot of those initiatives and worked very closely with the citizens committee, the Citizens
Oversight Committee. Dou9', who is now on the SAws board, was the chair of
that committee initially, and we really rolled up our sleeves as a committee and looked at
how we could better use the resources that the yity and the ¢'o~a nd the River Authority
and everybody had toward flood-control initiatives and trying to look at this thing more
1\
comprehensively. So SARA's profile was getting- was- what am I trying to say?
lncreasin~
Yeah. SARA's profile was increasing within the community at that time, which was good
for the River Authority, but again, people were sort ofwondering)"What's this little agency
doing now? It's kind of becoming a little bit more aggressive" in some people's eyes,
although I think it was just that SARA was sort of stepping up now to its real responsibilities.
And that was, of course, when Greg started. So Greg, what he was doing over here at the
time was trying to figure out where the River Authority was going and believed that sort of
an intergovernmental position was necessary. So he created an intergovernmental
relations/community relations position, and he let me know that he was doing that and told
me that it was going to be a position that was going to be out on the street.
So when I saw it, I did apply for it, and of course learned about it through Greg and through
my relationships with the River Authority at the time, and I applied for the job and came over
here. Felt like it was a real good move for me because I was very interested in the two big
projects, River Improvements Project as well as the flood control, the regional flood control
program at the time. And then also at that time there was some desire to develop regional
water supply projects and trying to get more regional in water management that the River
Authority was involved in.
And you know, when I was at Bexar County, although I mentioned specifically about the
relationship with the River Authority, I was also involved in a whole lot of other things.
Bexar County, as any county government, looks at a variety of things. They're looking at
jails and adult probation and juvenile probation and juvenile issues and courts and just tons
of stuff, and I really wanted to be able to focus in one area. That was one of the things I liked
•
\) about when I was at VIA~ you're just looking at transportation and all the aspects of
transportation. Well, I realized I really wanted to get focused in the environment, and water
was a big issue. Water is big here in the county and in the region, and I felt like getting some
more expertise in that would help me in my career long term.
So that's why I felt like the move to the River Authority was a good one for me.
L~up just a minute and go back to the issue of the flood tax. What was the
reservation to that in terms of what Marcus ~id in bringing it up as a subject and
seeking more accountability?
In the 1999 Amendatory Contract that was ultimately approved had the - had SARA having
o-to
come each year to the commissioners court with t.heir work plan and that that work plan
would be- and all the various aspects of that work plan and the cost associated with that
work plan, and then Bexar County would decide how much of that money that they were
collecting from the flood tax would come to the River Authority. They would have approval
of each of the projects; we would have to justify each of the projects that we would need the
~
money for, flood-control projects that we were working on in partnership with Bexar County.
1\
0 So the money was- stayed at Bexar County. Bexar County set the tax rate based on what
they felt the tax rate needed to be based on projects that they felt were justified through a
review process in the context of other things that the ~ounty was looking at. Because the
war the founty sets their tax rate, it's an overall tax rate. They have an O&M tax rate for all
thd~ctivities, and then they have this flood tax rate, but on the - but to them, they manage it
as sort of one tax, even though on your tax bill, it's two taxes. They kind of look at it
holistically at how much Bexar County is taxing the voters. So they wanted to make sure
that they weren't overtaxing in the flood tax arena based on the projects that were necessary.
So they were able to manage that a little bit more.
So there was a lot more accountability; we had to come and justify each of the projects, we
had to give them a better accounting of how the money was being spent, we had to get
approval from them on any debt that we would issue and what the rates would be and all of
that. So it was a lot- I think the ultimate result of all that was little bit more transparency, a
little bit more control from Bexar County's fiduciary responsibility for those taxes.
Did it result in any less money coming over to SARA?
Yes, very much so.
Did that play into the subsequent decision to reactivate the tax?
Yes, I think it did. Because one of the decisions that - when I got this job, when I came over
here and actually interviewed for my first job at the River Authority, I told Greg Roth~"You
need to have your own funding source. You cannot continue to be - you cannot continue to
rely on Bexar County or any other intergovernm~~ funding sources because then you're
never going to be in control of your own destiny." Those days ;;:e over. ~
7
Because every entity is going to want to have control over their own tax money, and Bexar
County is no different. I mean, just the political change, the shift that happened from the
) 80s to the) 90s when people became more aware, and I'm sure- I don't know if you recall,
but that's also when the whole process of doing appraisals of property, this more specific
how properties are appraised and how taxes are set on appraised values, I mean, assessed
values, through the Bexar County Appraisal District, for example. All of that was starting to
get a little bit more known because that all came in kind of in the )80s, and then it was sort of
coming into the J90s, and although it had been some time since that unified appraisal
program had been institutionalized in Texas, people were now starting to pay a little bit more
attention to their tax bill and realizing, "Whoa, where's it going?"
So I think that just every entity, every taxing entity became a little bit more cognizant
because they were being held a little bit more accountable by the taxpayers. So all of that
made for this more transparency. "Where's our money going? How's it going to be used?"
Holding elected officials more accountable. So that made the- really, the commissioner at
()/
the time that started this whole process was Commissione Bielstei , very conservative
Republican on the court at the time, and he's the one that really push~d Marcu8nd the
rest of them to start looking at that. And then he retired and has now passed away.
And then the other commissioner on the court at the time that was very much concerned
about where the money.was going was Commissione~He called the River Authority
a sub-rosa organizatio~ they were making decisions that no one would know about, and
there was no accountabili~ really raised the profile. After ~tired and
moved on, Commissione~ind of picked that up and really wanted t~ere to be a light
shining on the River Authority and where we were going and what we were doing, which
was the right thing to do.
I think the that River Authority looked at it as sort if an affront. The board at the time - I
was over at Bexar County, but the board saw it as taking away what the River Authority had.
~
I mean, the River Authority had a good thing going¥ fuey got all that flood control money and
Q
spent it very wisely. I'm not suggesting, again, that anything went wrong or did anything
wrong. But there wasn't the- there just wasn't the public accountability necessary. It's just
the politics changed.
So then when I carne over here, through all those negotiations on the amendatory contract,
SARA- Greg Rothe and his team realized that there was going to be a lot more scrutiny.
There was not going to be the ability- at that time, the River Authority was able to build up
reserves from some of the money that carne over from Bexar County, and those days- it was
just going to change, it was just going to change. And it really did throw the River Authority
into kind of a reassessing of who they were going to be.
And that's why Greg felt like it was time. He knew that if we didn't do something, if the
River Authority did not do something to have control of its own destiny, then the River
Authority could just be taken over. Because obviously if all the funding is corning from
another entity, it's not a big jump to say, "Well, then, why doesn't that entity do everything
that that River Authority's doing" or just take the River Authority under their control. And
)
that would be - at that time, it would have been pretty easy for the commissioners court to do
that through legislation and all because the River Authority had not been taxing, had not been
using its taxing ability, did not use - did not have its own funding source.
In the sense that they were operating wastewater systems, for example, there was money
coming in.
Yes. There was money coming in from the wastewater system, but that was being operated
as an enterprise fund. So the wastewater system sort of supported its own development,
didn't really support the other sides, the flood control and some of the other elements that
Bexar County was funding.
At that time, remember, Bexar County was funding all of the darns that were being built.
Bexar County was funding the channelization and the tunnel project, all that was coming
from money from - of course, the Corps was funding the majority of it. Obviously times
0
were different then, the Corps of Engineers was funding something lik~ercent of it, so
the majority of it was federal money. But the local share was coming from Bexar County,
-.- J..c._
and SARA matched that. I mean, that kept SARA busy for a long, long tim; h neapJ:he
tunnels and the channelization and all the dam building through the NRCS, again, most of
that money coming from the federal government. So the iounty's funding and support of
those projects was not as financially significant, but it made the deal happen because SARA
didn't have the ability to do it on its own.
~
Was there any sense that there might be a possibility the Corps funding would begin to lessen?
I think at the same time that this transparency was occurring at the local level, the Corps was
changing their matching requirements, and the days o@ percent federal,[) percent local was
just gone. So that was changing at the same time. It was just a lot of change between the
) gos and the) 9Qs in how things were being approached.
So when I talked to Greg about the fact that they needed- in my interview, "You need to get
your own funding source." And he had said at the time, "Well, we have the ability to tax.
We have not been institutionalizing that tax for a long time. We just set it at zero fo@)
years." I said, "Well, you've got to change that. You've got to go in and justify what the
River Authority needs to do and what this money would be used for."
And the timing was perfect because we were also going through that assessment of the whole
regional flood-control program, who should be doing what, where should the money go.
And the idea of the whole- needing to do a wholesale update of all the flood maps and the
computer models and all the technology that was now available. ~e f ity and the .0>unty
could never seem to get those funds prioritized in their budgets because of all their
competing priorities, it never got to the top priority at the ¢'ity and the lounty for their funds.
But at the River Authority with our funding source, it would have been perfect because we
0~
don't have all t~competing priorities.
So the community was sort of supporting the fact that they felt that because of the River
1()
Authority's expertise in flood control with all the Corps projects we've done and just the
institutional development of that flood-control expertise, it just made a natural sense. And
the community at the time, by that committee that was formed, saw that - they were
advocating for a regional flood entity, flood-control entity. And if that were to happen, then
there could be like a Harris County Flood Control District or something like that_ And at that f)
time, the 'fount:J; and I guess Judge ~as the judge at that tim5 felt like maybe that l..l.:cJil
would be the way to go, go to the j egislature, create sort of a Harris County Flood Control
District concept here in Bexar County. And the Harris County Flood Control District is
governed by the commissionerd court in Harris County. And we didn't feel like that was
going to be the right way to go. I mean, there are some pros and cons to that, but generally
we felt like we could do it better here.
So the River Authority at the time felt while this was all going on and Greg and I - I was
over here, this was in 2000/2001 time frame, we decided that we needed to put the tax back
in to support this mapping effort. But of course also we had to make sure that we could -
make sure that the downstream counties also knew how they would benefit. So we came up
with a whole program of campaign material, if you will, saying "This is what we would do
by putting this tax back in. These are the types of programs that we would be able to do
within your community here in Bexar County as well as in each of the downstream counties."
And we went and talked to all of the elected officials. We went through a process of
convincing them that this money would go to good use, a use that really hadn't been filled by
anybody else because, again, it never comes to the top of the priority scheme for a lot of
these other entities throughout the basin. So we were able to put the tax back in.
Was all this part of a jive-year plan -
Uh-huh, it was.
~
---,._2001?
Yes. And we put together a five-year financial and service plan that was built upon having
1 1
the tax put back in. And it enabled us, then, to do all of these things, but it also gave the
River Authority the ability and control over its own funding, over its own decision-making,
of course made us much more accountable, made the board - it had the board now in a more
higher profile situation as it relates to a fiduciary responsibility for its own tax money.
Our board was a little hesitant to put the tax in initially because, again, taxes, it's never
popular. But as we went and talked throughout the basin, there was no resistance. From +f-..­elected
officials, there was no media resistance, there was no problem with putting that tax in.
Everyone realized we justified it, we did a very good job justifying the reason that that tax
needed to be put back in.
What role did your commissioners at the time play-your board - in helping to communicate
locally with the downstream counties and help with convincing locally?
You know, they were very involved, and they were, again, very hesitant because, again,
being a taxing entity is - raises your political profile for an elected official, and they were a
little hesitant. But they went down, and they talked to their respective county judges and
used the material that we had prepared, went down, and made a convincing argument to all
those various elected officials.
And the tax was so small, remember, it's capped at 2 cents per $100 valuation, and at the
time, I think we were looking at like 1.6 cents, 1.64, I think, when we put the tax in initially.
So it wasn' t a huge tax, and for the downstream counties, it wasn't going to be a whole lot of
money. Bexar County it was going to be much more significant. But Bexar County agreed
to putting the tax back in because they saw that they were going to benefit with these updated
maps and the modeling and this multimillion dollar project that they were not going to have
to fund, and it allowed Bexar County to cut down on their flood tax rate a little bit while we
put our tax back in.
The agreement in this interlocal agreement that we had, had SARA's funding responsibilities
outlined and had the 7ounty's funding responsibilities for the capital improvement
1'1
component. So we would have to do all the planning and the mapping and then the
operations and maintenance sort of in the back end ofthese projects, and they wopld build
them. So it enabled us to tell the community that we're putting each of the entit~ resources
in the place where they are best suited, whereas ours - because of the limitations on our tax-­were
able to do the mapping and the modeling and all that, which we've been now engaged
in for several years. So, I mean, it worked out.
How did the discussion develop about how much- where to set the tax?
I think it was based on the needs. We did projections as to how much the remapping effort
and the modeling effort would take for us to do and then some of the other debris removal
programs and flood control - floodplain management type of things that we were also doing,
parks initiatives, the water quality issues. Obviously it was going to let us be more proactive
in wate~quality issues because we could use the money in that way.
So we all- all the managers looked at what- if they could develop a program, what would it
be, and they came up with those programs and identified how much money would be
necessary through this five-year planning process. And you know, we also went through a
whole strategic plan process, goal-setting, all of that. It all just moved up to what could we
do and how could we better serve the community and how would the funding be used in that
way. So when we went through that exercise and just did the math, the tax came out to about
that 1.64 cents per $100 valuation to fund the programs.
We actually set it so that we knew that it wouldn't be enough each year to fund everything
we needed for the mapping effort, so we borrowed from ourselves; we borrowed from future
tax to pay for that incrementally. We basically borrowed from our reserves to do some of the
funding on the DFIRM effort, Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map program, and then over the
years we've paid the reserves back from taxes that we've collected so that we didn't have to
put the full burden on the taxpayers in the first year.
So you assumed it was going to be a more expensive program -
1'l
Yes.
- to develop, thfn you could pay fo-,; ~
Yes. We paid for it incrementally because the board wanted us to be as frugal as possible
given the fact that it was going to be an expensive program to do.
So was that the program that had the highest priority for you-all in that plan?
The flood-control aspects? Yes. The updating of the flood maps throughout - both in Bexar
County and all of our downstream countie(!i was really a very top priority because the
community had not been7 the whole basin had not seen maps, Bexar County had not been
holistically updated since the late J70s, and then I don't think Goliad County had -
(End of Tape 1, Side 1. Beginning ofTape 1, Side 2.)
-and Goliad County had never had maps before. So this was a big deal for the entire basin.
And of course, then those maps - the models could also then generate flood warning systems
and all that so - and also be able to do better analysis of capital improvement projects and
make better choices for the fity and the j,ounty, and the fities downstream could make
better choices about investments into capital projects.
We also then began to fund the local share of some of the Corps of Engineers flood studies
because we could use it for that purpose. So we started funding those, and Bexar County
wasn't funding- having to fund the studies. Whatever came out of the studies, they would
agree that they would also fund the implementation.
And basically what all of it did, all of that sort of shift for the River Authority and beginning
to institutionalize the tax, it allowed for us to have more control over our own programs, be
able to develop more long-term programs in flood control and water quality in the areas that
111
~
we were passionate about and be able to form our niche and our own identity as an
/\
environmental agency.
How did the funty react to this, to this new sort of trend?
Well, I think the jounty welcomed the money, for one thing, because then it didn't put it on
their burden, it put it on us. However, they still felt like they wanted - we were still having a
lot of their money coming over here because we had active projects, the River Project, other
things like that, so they were still wanting the accountability for the portions of the tax that
was coming over here. But I think what it started to do is began to have them look at us in a
different way.
ll
There was some challenges, turf issues and political issues and all of that ab~u> ~at' s the
River Authority doing, why is the River Authority trying to raise its profile? There's only so
much power in a community, there's only so much, and now you have another entity that's
trying to put its head up there and push its way into this already very saturated political
environment. So there was a little bit of challenge. So it was a little rough at first, but I think
~
that was expected. I think that just those pushes and pulls in accountability and all of that
was just a natural progression.
Plus the River Improvements Project was starting to get a little bit more momentum, and the
cost of that project was going to be significant. And I think where the /ounty started getting
a little concerned, and it still is a concern of theirs, is you know, who gets the credit?
Where's the credit going? And if the River Authority - so we have to be very careful about
when we talk about the River Improvements Project or even the flood-control projects that
we're doing with the f,ounty. We're very sensitive to making sure that the ,iounty gets the
credit for the funding that they're doing and making sure that any time that we do publicity
that we make sure that they know that it's a partnership project. ~xar County is a funder, the
River Authority is a project manager so that we can just give everybody the credit they
deserve.
And quite frankly, from our perspective and- you know, the River Authority is very much of
a humble organization; we're not out there trying to get credit for everything that we do. We
just want to make sure that we do the right thing and sort of having a philosophy of the fact
that if we do the right thing, people will know. And we need to keep our name out there,
obviously, so people know who we are and what we're doing, but we don' t need to be out
there saying "That was us, that was us, that was the River Authority," because it~oesn't
serve you well, puts your focus more in the arena of getting credit rather than just doing what
needs to get done for the right reasons. So that's-
This seems to be a strong part of the River Authority 's identity.
Yes, it is.
And a very carefully cultivated one -
Yes.
- within the River Authority.
It is. And it's frustrating to some folks. And I've always been - since I've been here and
kind of been responsible for a lot of our communication, that's just been my philosophy, and
I think Greg was the same way. You know, Greg was not areal showman, he wasn't out
there trying to get credit for ~ng, and we had a good match in that regard.
Because sometimes I feel like people can- if you are always trying to promote or get credit
or market yourselves, people, especially in the public arena, start to question, "Well, what is
your motive?" Is your motive about getting publicity, or is your motive about doing the
service that's necessary to improve the quality of life, improve the environment, do all the
things that we're doing? And obviously, we're, as an agency, more focused on the expertise
and the knowledge and putting that out there to make the improvements that are necessary.
l.h
And because our board does not have- still even though we're a taxing entity, we do not
have the profile of some of the other elected officials within the communit)j ,iey don't feel
the necessity to be on the news every night and to get their own profile as individual elected
officials raised within the community.)o consequently, we' re not battling that, whereas in
thefity and the,iounty, you're constantly - the elected officials are out there trying to make
sure that the constitue~ knows what they're doing so that when it comes to reelection, they
have that exposure, tname recognition and that sort of thing. And our board, we're not there
yet. I think that's going to happen for this organization, but it's not there yet. So it's allowed
for us to be a little bit more humble in the way that we approach things and just do things that
need to get done for the right reasons.
Was there anyone within the structure of the River Authority before you came who was more
or less responsible for the intergovernmental relations and the communication?
Not, really. The general manager, Fred, did a lot of that himself. But again, the River
Authority did not really have as many intergovernmental relations at the time because most -- of the funding was from one government, which was Bexar County .. there was no money
downstream, and of course, the local sponsor role that they had with the NRCS and the Corps,
that was sort of outside of the purview of most of the local issues. So the intergovernmental
relationships were oftentimes more federally focused than they were locally focused because
there just wasn't the spotlight on the River Authority at the time.
So if you were going to summarize the impact of the tax, how would you describe that?
The impact of the tax has allowed for the River Authority to have more control of its own
destiny. That's how I would summarize it. We can now look at what we as an entity and
based on our statutory responsibilities, based on what our role is here, we can define how we
can serve the community in the best way possible in the areas that we're responsible for,
whereas befor7although we had some of that responsibility, it was really - could be jerked
out in a minute.
1'7
As it was, it could have - it was almost jerked out from us. So even though the River
Authority thought they were in control of their destiny at that time, they really weren't. One
action by the commissionerJ court to cut off the money to SARA could have decimated this
whole organization. And a matter of fact, they did have to have a RIF- I wasn't here the~­but
they did have to get rid of a lot of their engineers and all once the tunnel project was
completed because they didn't have anything else for them to do. So I think that by putting
the tax in, we became more in control of the programs that we felt -
~
Bttt being in control of your own destiny also means having to fulfill a need that the
community has. If we put the tax in and weren't fulfilling the need, then obviously we would
get a lot more push back from the community. But the community sees- and we did a recent
survey, I don't know if anyone's talked to you about that, but we did a survey recently about
where the River Authority- what we're doing, our mission, is it important, and all of the
feedback was very positive from Bexar County as well as all of our downstream counties.
Now, admittedly, our name recognition probably isn't as high as SAWS or others just
because people get a bill, you know, they get a bill from SAWS, they don't get a bill from the
River Authority. They get their tax bill and that's about it. They don't- it's not a monthly
reminder of where their money goes. So) but for our name recognition is not as high as some
of the other entities, but that would be expected because we don't have as much direct
interaction with constituents every day.
Do you think it 's made a difference in your relationships with your downstream counties?
Oh, gosh, yes, absolutely. In our downstream counties, we- SARA had absolutely no
presence down there other than the federal dams and the feder~rojects that we had done in
Karnes County, which were very appreciated from the flood/control protection that they
provided to those communities. But just on a day-to-day basis, there really was not very
much interaction with our downstream counties at all.
Now we have day-to-day-just daily interaction with them on a variety of areas. People
1 Q
know- downstream counties know who we are. We're providing the flood maps, we're
down there on a more regular basis, we're having more interaction with other water-related
entities, we're obviously - and I'm sure others have talked about this.
One of the good - because of where SARA came from, because we sort of had to partner
with others in order to get money, you know, like Bexar County and the federal government
and others to support projects, we' re very good at bringing people together for a common
purpose. And we~ done that in some ofthe water supply issues with the SB-1, Region L,
and then all of its predecessor-type water planning programs. So as a regional entity and
because we had to bring people together because we didn't have our own funding source or
didn't act on our own funding source really made us good at facilitating, problem solving,
and bringing people together.
So it was a natural progression for us once we had our own tax., .Je had those skills already to
kind of work with people and to make sure that we were satisfying their needs, not just
coming in with our own needs. So just by having that philosophy here, we were able to go
back into those communities and say, "Well, now we've got money. What are your needs?
How can we help you?" And it just became the process of being able to help them without
taking over their responsibilities.
Some of the smaller entities were concerned that that River Authority was going to come in
as a bigger agency, a more powerful agency coming from Bexar County and San Antonio,
which is never seen as a good thing because they see that as kind of the 800-pound gorilla
coming down into their communities. So we're really sensitive to that and made sure that we
didn't come in and try to implement things that those local communities weren't behind. But
it allowed us to be more helpful and to address concerns that they just didn't have the
capabilities or the knowledge or the money to do.
And we've done debris removal programs downstream that have been very appreciated by
those communities. We've been able to develop some parks initiatives like the Goliad canoe
trail and Jackson Nature Park and just all the things that we've been able to do down there.
10
Now we have the presence, and people see that their tax dollars that they are paying, they're
getting some return on that investment, they're getting a value back from the money that
they're paying to us.
Do you think it made a difference with your board?
The tax?
Uh-huh.
Oh, absolutely. I mean, it makes them much more- they take that fiduciary responsibility
very seriously.
I'm thinking about specifically the downstream board members.
Yes. It makes them know that they have the ability to get more involved financially in
initiatives downstream. It's- I think that the board members, downstream board members
feel- walk on a tightrope a lot of the times. They want to be conservative from a financial
perspective because they know and are sensitive to the impact of taxing. But they also want
to be able to utilize funds to make a difference in their communities. So it's a constant push
and pull, "How can we do this without necessarily having to have too much of a financial
impact?"
And what we continue to try to do - the tax is collected in all four counties at the same rate,
but we don't account for it based on county-by-county collections, so we look at - because
we know what happens upstream in an urbanized environment in Bexar County does have
impacts downstream. What we do in Bexar County from a development perspective can
adversely impact the flooding in Wilson and Karnes Counties, for example. So we have to
be sensitive to that, and we try to avoid this upstream/downstream issue of accounting for the
funding.
But it did come up very recently on an issue that we have with the tax and this budget that
we're in right now for the '08/'09 budget cycle. We had to increase - we proposed an
increase to the tax because we're going to have to start maintaining part of the River
Improvements Project, both the Museum Reach that's coming online in '09 and then the
phases of the Mission Reach downstream. And I don't know if Mr. Weaver talked to you
about this, but that's a huge responsibility in Bexar County that the River Authority is now
committed to do, and it's going to take a significant amount of our remaining portion of our
tax. And the downstream communities - downstream directors were concerned about that
because,{j) it' s a Bexar County initiative;@, it is - any increase in the tax, it impacts
downstream folks too, not to the greatest extent that it does up here obviously from a
cumulative perspective. But they were seeing that we were increasing the tax for a Bexar
County need~d how were they going to benefit downstrearl. y
So how did you explain it?
Well, you know, many of the initiatives that we have span the basin. We've got water­quality
initiatives downstream, we've got flood-control initiatives, we're doing all the
mapping and the modeling and the flood warning systems, all of that downstream. I mean,
right now if you look at the allocation, the funding that's being spent downstream is more
than what's being collected downstream. And that's okay because, again, as I said, this is a
regional approach. And I as a general manager, don't want to focus on that because I want
the folks downstream to understand that if you look at it as a system, sometimes one
community may get more than another community; it just is the way it's going to happen
depending on needs. So I don't like to make the distinction.
However, Bexar County board members do make the distinction because they want the
downstream board members to understand that the majority of the money is collected here
and they get to benefit from that. And the elected officials downstream, not just our board
but the commissioner - the county judges downstream, understand that dynamic, they know
that they're getting the benefit. But you don' t want to publicize that because the county
judge in Bexar County wants to make sure that everything that's collected in Bexar County is
'11
spent in Bexar County.
So that's why this upstream/downstream balance is in this system, in this basin-wide
approach. We've just got to keep people focused at that higher level and knowing that the
needs are going to vary from county to county depending on what's happening that particular
time frame.
But as we were going through this decision about increasing the tax, our chairman wanted to
take the tax all the way up to the max, th@ents, all the way up to the limit, thGJcent limit
and allow for- that would mean that we would be collecting more than we need right now,
but we would be able to build up sort of a operations and maintenance reserve that we could
use not only here in Bexar County but also downstream for stream restoration issues, because
the river has eroded in a lot of areas just because of all of the flood flows and such, and it's
:LI,':;
scoured the banks in some of the areas downstream .. starting to affect parkland and other
things. So he said we could go and fix that. We don't want to change the river's course, but
you can try to help it along a little bit more in some of the more developed areas.
So the downstream board members felt like that was a little bit too aggressive from a taxing
perspective and felt like we should fund the needs incrementally and let's see what happens
from the development perspective with the assessed valuations. You know, obviously this is
~
a growing are(\. ~s going to happen from an economic perspectiv~ ~ possibly on a lower
tax you'd still be able to collect enough money to meet the needs. So it was a- the first
~on theG/cent tax was a split vote, I guess it was ~vote so that means it didn't pass.
So then when the next vote came around that said accept the tax rate based on whatever we
need to balance the budgej given that we had this new need here on the river, that's what
passed, that tax. That's the approach that the board wanted to take and predominantly driven
by the downstream board members and the conservative approach that they wanted to take,
~emental approach.
1
Getting not only officeholders but the general public to grasp that concept of the basin
approach is really a tremendous educational hurdle.
Yes, it is.
What - how do you go about doing that? Because it's obviously fundamental to the
operation of the River Authority, the successful operation, and to long-range plans.
The way that we're trying to do that is to focus on the role of the river and its tributaries, the
watershed, how does the water flow. And we've constantly said that flooding knows no
jurisdictional boundaries, the water's going to go where the water goes. And it's all based on
the watershed. So I think that through educational programs that we've done and
programmatic development and the mapping and the modeling and all the programs, even the
water-quality programs that we've looked at, we look at it on a watershed basis, and we're
trying to educate people about their watershed.
It's challenging because people don't think ofthings that way. So one of the things that
we've - we're coming to realize is- and we've set this goal this year- is enhancing~
appreciation of the San Antonio River and its tributaries~~mple thing. But having it as a
goal, to enhance appreciation, means that people have got to know it. People don't - if you ­as
I mentioned earlier, even here in Bexar County most people think of the river - and even
in our survey, when you ask l::· "What do you think about the San Antonio River?"
Immediatel)/ "River Walk." 0~at's what they think about.
They don't think about the river as a natural resource for this community. I mean, we've got
a beautiful historic river that runs through these communities all throughout this basin. But
because ofthe history ofthe river, first of all it's been channelized here in Bexar County; it's
a drainage ditch to most peopl7 especially on the ,South ~ide of the communi~ bulk of
the river,5o this River Improvements Project to restore that environment is going to change
the dynamics, change the view, change the appreciation of the river. People are going to be
coming back to the river as a natural resource because of this project that we're doing.
And then downstream, people forever had seen the river as a cesspool because, as you've
D
heard from others, the water quality was so bad and it's taken a long time - and again in that
same survey that we did, if you ask the downstream communit)) "What do you think of the
San Antonio River?" "Polluted, dirty, it's yucky." I mean, that's what they say in this
survey, which isn't true. The water quality in the river is very good,SAWS has improved the
amount- the protection, the plant that they have has increased significantly the water quality
on the river. But to take a population of people who used to love the river, then hated the
river, and make them love the river again, it is a very difficult thing to do.
So what we've set as a goal i?ifwe can just enhance th~ciation of the river as a
natural resource. And how are we going to do that? We're going to make sure that it doesn't
flood people. But as much as we can we want people to know how the river could adversely
impact them; if you're on a river or close to a river, it's going to flood. ~eed to
understand and appreciate that; it's just the way rivers are.
You've got to know- we have to do a very good job in letting people know that the quality
" of the river, the water in the river is good and the habitat is there and it' s a vibrant ecosyste~
--(h'ey need to understand and appreciate that. Then they need to recreate on the river. If they
come and they recreate, they get there, they enjoy it, they're going to want to protect it ..
1fu"ey're going to want to make sure that this natural resource is something that is of value to
them. And that's how we're going to make this shift.
And then people are going to say, "Well, wait a minute. We've got to make sure that what
they're doing in Bexar County isn't going to mess up my river down here in Karnes County."
So then they're going to understand the systematic- this basin-wide approach because
they're going to know, "Duh, what happens upstream has an effect on what's going on
downstream." It's going to make them more aware. So that's where we're focusing. If you
don't focus it on the resource itself, then people aren't going to get it, they're not going to
understand how we link as a region.
I imagine just getting people outside to participate -
Yes.
- at the river is a major ...
It's huge. And this River Improvements Project in Bexar County is going to be huge in that
regard because I think it's going to draw people from the lower basin up here. They're also
going to realize that that same restoration that we're doing here could be done in some of
these downstream counties. Now, obviously the river has not been channelized downstream,
but if people in these other communities have access to the river from a recreational
perspective, then that will just be able to create trailheads, be able to create recreational
opportunities along the river.
And then the other side of that is we're going to have to make sure there's water in the river
and that - we're working in a very - and we' re working with our partners up here. As you
know and I'm sure they've told you, because we pump the Edwards Aquifer, the springs that
feed the river go dry, and as this community urbanizes, the springs - the fluctuation in the
springs is greater. And of course, the focus has always been politically on protecting the
species over at the springs that feed the Guadalupe River because this community has made a
decision a long time ago to have wastewater effluent be the surrogate for flood - for spring
flows.
But we have to make sure that we keep water in the river both in Bexar County and
downstream so that SAWS has their reuse program and they put water back in the river
during low flow times. We have to understand and this community has to understand and
apprecia~re regional perspective that they can't think of this- they can't just let SAWS
take all the effluent and pump it back in for reuse purposes within the community. There's
got to be some water that continues to flow downstream to support the river and its
ecosystem all the way down.
They call it environmental flows. And there's a whole state-wide effort to look at that and
how the rivers contribute to the health of the bay and estuaries, and our community is going
to become even more educated about that. And we hopefully through our partnership with
SAWS can come to an understanding about how much water they' re going to continue to
reuse so that they don't have to develop new supplies, which we support, but also balancing
those needs of what we need downstream. And again, that's going to also promote this
regionalism, this basin-wide approach, knowing that the river is not exclusively a Bexar
County river; it' s a river that connects us regionally.
And that's a little shift in a lot of people's minds, too. ~t luckily most of our elected officials,
or all of them that I've spoken to, and all the leaders here, they understand it. And I've not
heard any indication that anyone wants to dry up the river downstream and consequently
adversely impact the bays. So I think that's going to help us in our long-term view of the
river as a resource because water has got to be there to make it a resource that people will
enjoy.
I wanted to ask you something about a very specific program which had to do with the flood
mapping. I understand that that was a very innovative sort of technological - it was a
technological innovation that you-all came up with -
Yes.
-in terms of how you do it. Was there ever any thought given to treating that as a
proprietary sort of product that the River Authority could have marketed?
Well, you know, we've done some of that. The way that we've done this proprietary thing, if
you will, is through the use of one of our consultants, PBS&J, sort of in a partnership with
them. They' re the firm that's helping us develop this regional watershed management
systems, computer system, that can house of all these models. The concept is that through
this system, someone could go in and pull out a piece of the model, update it, and then put it
back into the system so that we can continually have updated models and dynamic models
and maps consequently then that would reflect the changing land use and all of that, which is
very innovative. It's a challenge to get all that done, and we're still developing all of that.
But the other side of that is we did talk about a program to -<6bce we develop all these maps
and models, is that something we're going to charge people for, have a fee, have people have
to pay for it? We went back and forth about that a lot, but the- I think the conclusion that
we came to, at least currently, is the fact that we believe it was paid foJ·the taxpayers paid
for it already. And the benefit of having developers and communities have free access to this
information will have it more used, institutionalized in the planning and development of
communities. If it becomes something that people have to pay for or don't have ready access
to, then maybe it won't be used as freely. So right now we have chosen to allow it to be used
and seen as a way to improve decision-making, having better tools.
So in the end it ends up benefiting your work-
Yes.
- as the River Authority because there 's wiser planning within the basin.
Exactly. Decisions that are being made from a watershed perspective with better tools. Ifwe
were to keep it and make it very difficult for people to access it, then it won't be used and
institutionalized in the development and the management of communities within the basin.
However, the innovation that we're doing and our approach in all that I do think has :J within
the community of those expeltjhas significantly raised the proflle of the River Authority as a
innovator, as a organization that wants to do the best;- the most cutting-edge, state-of-the-art
type of approach versus doing the old standard way. And that -
(End ofTape 1, Side 2. Beginning ofTape 2, Side 1.)
You were saying that set you apart.
Yeah. I think the innovation is something that's always sort of set us apart, from my
perspective, and the fact that we've got technical - we have engineers and a lot of technical
'1'7
people here that allow for us to have that type of innovation. And it is - it's a very important
part of who we are, and we've got to maintain that. And one of the goals that we've set is to
sort of lead by example and to set the standard of how things need to be done, and that
includes the technological advancements that we can have here.
So that's one of the sort of leadership roles for the River Authority. /)zd then a lot of what
I've heard about from others and I'm getting from you is this leadership role as facilitator.
Is there anything else you would like to say about that?
Well, I think it' s a very important niche that we have. I think it's part of having this humility
that I mentioned, this being hwnble. It's not about us; it's about collective - the collective
benefit that organizations and communities coming together can have. Obviously the
whole - the old adage "two heads are better than one," well, five heads are better than one. I
mean, if you kept everybody's thought process together and you have an entity that can try to
facilitate, pull the best out of everybody, then ultimately everyone has some buy-in, everyone
understands what we're trying to do. No one feels like they were forced into a solution.
It takes a lot more time to do that~1iud a lot of entities, a lot of public entities get very
frustrated through these facilitated partnership-type initiatives because they just t~ "Oh, I
just want to do it and get it done." Because it's very hard, it's very hard to bring people
together. But we are very good at it, and I think it's just because we're not looking for the
credit.
I think also what we've done with some of the Region L, the water planning, people trust the
River Authority because we don't have - we're not a water purveyor to the great extent like a
SAWS or someone else. We're not a regulator like the EAA. We're not as involved in
controversial projects like GBRA, so we're kind of seen as sort of neutral. We have our own
controversies along the edges, but generally we're seen as kind of neutral. So we're able to
bring people together, have some good dynamics, good discussion, bring issues together, and
we're non-threatening in that regard. People know that we don't really have a hidden agenda
because there's not much we can do in that regard.
')Q
In other words, you're not in competition with any of these groups.
No, we're not. And we're not- we don't have the funding ability to do anything that could
take advantage of them or circumvent something that they're trying to do. We're just not in
competition with them.
But your responsibilities require that they step up to the plate and fulfill their responsibilities.
Right. The way that I sort of look at it now ij if we can get other entities to continue to buy
in to initiatives that we think are important, then we're able to use the resources of these
other entities to try to accomplish what we believe is good for the environment. I mean, the
River Improvements Project is a prime example. We, the River Authority, way before my
time) wanted to restore the river and get it back to a more natural environment, and it took a
lot of prodding and moving that agenda down.
At first it was just us, the River Authority trying to push this initiative; then other people got
on board. And then they- then it became their initiative. So consequently now you've got
the judg&xar County judge and you've got the jity manager and the mayor and the
chamber and all these other people saying, "Oh, this River Improvements Project, that's our
project, top priority."
Bexar County just did an election for $125 million more in a visitors tax, passed®
highest ratio of any of the other initiatives on that ballot, to support this river project. Now,
that's terrific.'1hat project's going to get done now for this community because everybody
came on board. We convinced them that this was a good thing for them to get involved in,
and now it's going to happen. And this community is going to have this wonderful resource
that if the River Authority had not just started that process and prodded and taken the hits and
moved it on down the road in this environment of all these other conflicting priorities that
were happening within the community, and we just kept this thing moving. It just shows that
it takes patience, it takes the ability to get through and stay focused on what you're trying to
')Q
do)and make it happen. And we do that very well.
Same thing on the flood contro].~es a long time, but you keep moving the ball down every
year. Water quality the same way .. You just can't- and we've got the benefit of having a
board that is pretty stable, six-year terms, people have been on that board for a long, long
time. We don't have this changing political dynamic every two or four years as they do with
the J'itY,And at the ,¢ounty, although they have longer terms, the political dynamics of that
entity constantly changes too, because they have a higher profile in economic development
and other key areas that aren't always the ebb and flow based on just what's happening at the
time. We're not as sensitive to those changes.
. (
So I think th~ience that we've been able to take and kee~ ~on the prize and just
A s~
keep focusing on the initiatives that are important to us move~ that ball down the road a little
bit further.
So if you 've got a dozen entities that all have to do with water in Region L, then how do you
get them to acknowledge SARA as having a legitimate leadership role?
Well, it' s a challenge. Because they see us as more of the facilitator rather than the decision­maker,
it sometimes does weaken us in our ability to affect the direction. But in the Region
L world, because that's sort of water planning, water supply, although under Greg's
leadership that was something that he was really trying to get the River Authority to be more
engaged in, I think that he came to the realization at the end of his term and then as I've
come in realizing that may not be where we're going to be the most effective. So in that
particular venue, our leadership is our ability to not be a decisionfrn:-ker. Do you understand
what I'm saying? We command the respect and the - because we are, not because we have a
vested interest.
So the leadership that we've gained in sort of the water resources arena largely is because of
Steve Raabe, and people respect h~ 1?eople don't see him as threatening, but people see him
as very knowledgeable. Same thing with Mike Gonzales in our water quality .. tie's seen as a
respected scientist, has good knowledge. Neither one of those guys who are sort of in that
arena are seen as trying to push an initiative on agenda. It's about doing what's right, what's
best for the region.
So they end up being resources.
They're resources, technical resources as well as they have a lot of institutional knowledge
about the whole process that's happened for many, many years. And because we're not now
involved in any kind of water projec~ the Lower Guadalupe project is no longer:? we're not -- involved in that anymore~ it even gives us more of a independent view, so we're not as
threatening. So I think our leadership comes from the expertise and the knowledge and the
neutrality that we have~ lot of these issues. We're Switzerland.
(Laughing.)
You know, we don't have a dog in the hunt anymore. We're just - so people can rally and
see that if SARA's going to come and talk to them about it that SARA's going to be able to
balance both sides and look at both sides and see, "Okay. How can we bring this together in
a way that's going to get to a decision rather than it being polarized?"
Do you see any benefit to the GBRA - the pipeline project - I'm sorry, I misspoke. Not
GBRA, but to the pipeline project not having come off) basically?
Well, from our perspective, it has made us less of a lightning rod. It was becoming
something that was very controversial within the basin, particularly in Goliad County
because of the groundwater component. Put our board - our two board members down there
in a very difficult situation.
I think economically for us, it would have been very difficult for us to really make that thing
happen. Because we were supporting it through our reserves, but because our tax can't be
used for that purpose, it was going to make it difficult for us to make that project work long
'1 1
term.
So from SARA's perspective, I think that it's probably made us a little less of a lightning rod.
However, from a regional water supply and a more firm water supply for this community, I
wish that that pipeline project would have happened or would happen because it's something
that could allow for desalination and those types of things to happen in the future.
But I think eventually something's going to have to happen there, and I think the River
Authority will be involved, maybe not financially, but in this partnership role of facilitating
good decisions and making sure that it can be as palatable as possible. But it's going to be a
long time in the future. But as water-supply initiatives become less and less - let me just say
this: Many of the options that are currently being explored are falling off the table for
political reasons . .A£crthe LCRA project that SAWS is exploring is very, very expensive.
SAWS will not own that project, so putting a lot of money in a project that they will not own
long term, that's not really attractive. Taking groundwater from communities that believe
they need it rather than SAWS taking it for the purposes of their county is not very attractive.
Ultimately, the solution, if it could become economically viable, is desalination of saltwater.
And you need to get a way of transporting that water up to San Antonio, and you need a
pipeline to do that. And if we would have had the right- if we would have had the right-of­way
acquired, then you would have already had the ability to get that pipeline up the basin.
So I think in the future something like that's going to have to happen because everyone's
going to be fighting for their own water supply. S<J we'll see.
So if it goes to, say, a desalination project for underground water in Karnes County or
Wilson County, would your board members have something to say about that?
Well, in Wilson County, there is a project that SAWS is looking at to desalinate brackish
groundwater. And it is controversial in Wilson County; jnd our board members are
watching it with great interest because of the fact that they want to make sure that that's done
in a way that doesn't adversely impact Wilson County's ability to grow. And what we
'l')
continue to try to look at is, again, take that regional approach. You know, there's people in
Wilson County that rely on economic viability of Bexar County because they work here and
people commute. So there's a lot of that that we have to continue to affect.
We also, with the new leadership at SAWS, I think that they are more in tune to the regional
nature of what they have to do now so they will, I believe, draw the River Authority in a little ~
more into some of their regional decision-making to see if there's something that we can do
to try to help broker some of these things, figure out if there's some compromise that can be
done. We're already seeing a little bit of that now.
So yes, anything that happens within the basin we're going to be involved in, and I think that
the basin is always going to be a little leery of any initiative that is generated in San Antonio.
Are there other environmental issues, particularly in Wilson County, that SARA might be
involved in since that 's the county that seems to be growing the most?
Well, obviously flood control is huge there, the mapping and the modeling and the ability to
manage the growth in those floodplains so that they can have the ability to grow. We're also
working with them on wastewater service because they're growing in a way that they're
going to need wastewater.:-fustead of people being on septic, they're going to need centralized wastewater systems. The economic opportunities that can be generated from the
river itself, recreational and tourism activities, we've been in discussions with them on and
off about opportunities there, and that would then correlate, of course, to the flood protection
on the river and the water quality of the river.
~
So there' s a lot of issues in Wilson County that we've continued to work with them. They
II..
are in a -they're a classic sort of suburban county; they would not like to see themselves in
that way, but they are. Being so close to an urbanized area and the commuting and ..ff._
development that's all happening in south Bexar County is just- is impacting Wilson County
a lot.
So in terms of providing wastewater services, does SARA consider itself to be the logical
entity to do that?
Well, of course, the cities that are down there, Floresville and La V emia and Stockdale, I
mean, they all - they have their own city services, but we have come in and we've helped La
V emia, for example, with their wastewater program there and looking at their expansions at
their plant. We've given them a lot of advice. 'Jk·ve had some contract relationships with La
Vernia~d helped them in that regard because they're growing very quickly in La Vernia.
So we were the logical partner in that regard to have a nice partnership, a contract partnership
with them. And they appreciate that.
Same thing in the unincorporated areas of Wilson County. We haven't really gotten as
engaged in Floresville because it's a larger city ;1they have a little bit more sophistication
about the things that they're doing. We've helped them more with floodCntrol issues. Poth,
we've worked with them on their wastewater issues. But again, it's an evolving relationship,
you know.ft's just- it's expensive. I mean, the River Authority is - because we're a larger
entity, because of the way that we pay our people and the benefits that we pay our people,
having the River Authority involved is just more expensive to some of these communities to
help -to work with us.
So they're actually paying you consulting fees to come in?
They pay for us - we have a contract. Qrr people go down there and help them, for example,
in La Vernia. We had one in Poth, but we don't have that contract any longer because they
felt like they could do it a lot less expensively, which is fine. But it's just- and then what
impact that has, consequently, on their rates, if you have SARA involved and we're more
expensive, then they have to pass that on to the ratepayers, and it is - it's just the economics
of it.
But I believe as those communities grow and expand, the sophistication level of the - the
quality of the services that they're going to have to provide is going to have to go up, and
then that will necessitate increases in cost. And the capability ofthose communities to
absorb those fees will happen as they grow and as they become less rural and more suburban,
if you will. So I mean, it's just going to take some time.
But we've been very involved in Goliad County with the development of the water supply,
the centralized water supply down there.
Tell me about that.
The Goliad Water Supply Corporation, We worked with Goliad County to develop that water
supply corporation, helped actually fund them initially and have a contract to do all the
operations and maintenance of the water supply systems, the centralized systems that are
being created there. They got a lot of grant money to actually do the systems, and then we do
all the operations and maintenance of those systems. We collect fees. Right now the fees
that they collect from the ratepayers don't necessarily fully cover the cost of the operation,
but we see long term that's a good place for us to be because those communities are going to
grow.
And then we're also helping them in a similar way with the development of centralized
wastewater services down there. So we're getting engaged and doing what we can do for
these communities from an environmental perspective, and some of that does take investment
from us. That means our tax dollars are being used to subsidize, if you will, on a small scale
some of those systems down there that can't pay for themselves. But we see that as a service.
We just need to do that for those communities, and that's a part of the benefit of a regional
entity to do those kinds of things.
Tell me some about what you're doing with parks and where that fits in to the priorities that
have been set in the most recent five-year plan.
Well, again, as I mentioned earlier, I feel like increasing the amount of ability for people to
interact with the river is going to make them appreciate that resource more. And in the past,
SARA's parks initiatives~this is going way back; have really been centralized around
Braunig and Calaveras. We've had that long-term relationship with operating those parks,
and they're owned by CPS Energy; we operate them. And for a long time, those parks made
money, were able to cover their cost. Well, over the last few years, they haven't been, and
we've had to use money that we've collected from our taxes to subsidize those parks.
And just in the last year, I guess two years ago now, Greg Rothe had an agreement with CPS
} to help offset some of the subsid~,'"we shared it. Well, they came back this year and said,
"We're not going to do that anymore." They said that they're going through their own
decision-making process, and they felt like they did not want- they no longer wanted to
subsidize those parks. They felt like SARA, if we had a tax, we could subsidize those parks
or increase the fee at the gate. And we're just saying that's not- we don't own them, they're
not on the river, although it's river water that is pumped into those lakes;1hey're really not
river recreational opportunities.
So we're now going through a decision with CPS. CPS Energy is going to go and do an RFP
process, a request for proposal, to determine whether or not they can find somebody else to
operate those parks that would not require a subsidy from them, from CPS. And we're
D supporting that, "Fine, if that's what you want to do, that's fine." But we're going to
continue to operate those parks until that decision is made.
But that has really given us this last year or tw<_?because of this uncertainty about the subsidy
and the cost and how we're going to run those parks, it's really started us to think, "You
know, what really is our parks mission here? What's the recreational mission of this
organization?" So we went through a process of doing a master plan of looking at
recreational opportunities throughout our - along the river, and that's provided us a real
opportunity to focus on areas along the river and the tributaries to the river to enhance
recreational opportunities. So we've done that,~ have Jackson Nature Park, which is on
the Cibolo,. tvk've recently bought a small piece of property along the river in Bexar County.,
We're looking at opportunities to buy property in Wilson County along the river. We've
done the Goliad canoe trail and the paddling trail down there.
So where we've now shifted our focus is to look at recreational opportunities along the river,
and as this River Improvements Project on the Mission Reach becomes a reality and we're
going to operate and maintain that, that's going to be an eight-mile linear park that the River
Authority will be operating and maintaining. So that' s a park along the river, a natural park.
So now we're really shifting our focus to say where we can be the best at parks is to focus
them on the natural resource of the river and its tributaries so that people will begin to
appreciate that natural resource and want to protect it and develop it and have interaction
with it and appreciate the ecosystem that's there.
So that sounds like a refocus in terms of your long-term plan for-
Yes, yes. You know, we were running the parks- the Calaveras and Braunig, it was really
run as an enterprise fund for a long time; I mean, it supported itself. But then now as we
were having to put tax money into it, we're really trying to think, "Wait a minute. Is that the
right place for us to put our tax dollars?" I mean, yes, it's a wonderful recreational facility
here for the community, but is it something that the San Antonio River Authority should be
doing? If CPS wants to do it, I mean, they own it.
It's something kind of like LCRA, you know, they own facilities and they operate them
recreationally as a benefit, as a side benefit to the electric generation and all that that they're
doing, which is completely appropriate in that case. We're not in the electric business;lt's
not what we do. So I think that as we go through this chang~ ...rchange is always
good. It makes you really look at things from a different perspective and where you can
make the biggest difference. And this opportunity now that's in front of us is going to -
we'll see how that plays out.
Do you think there are any drawbacks to not participating in the running of those two lakes?
I think the biggest drawback is the employees. I mean, what are we going to do with~
employees that have actually been employed to operate those parks? That's my biggest fear.
'2'7
There's going to be, I don't know how many, there'@some-odd people that work out at
those parks. We can't take all those into our organization, so that's the part that concerns me
the most are the people.
And obviously I'd like the recreational opportunities to remain for the community. I mean, I
think they're in an urbanized area as south Bexar County is becoming. I think having these
recreational opportunities is very important for the quality of life for the community, so I
would hope that they would stay open for that purpose. But I think that the issue of the
employees is the most sensitive.
Because you know, quite frankly, because the resources are so limited, we can't make those
parks the wa~ would want to make those parks. We're running them on a shoestring right
now because we know the lim--;x:_ that our board doesn't want to put a whole lot of tax money
into something that we don't own. So a lot of the park can't be of the quality that we would
like it to be, and we're trying -
J.....
We've tried over the last few years to make it more natural. That park h<¢ been beat up.£
mean, people go out there, and they put their cars on- it's something else. So we're trying to
make them a more natural environment. And there's resistance from the people that have
gone out there and wanted put their car anywhere;- right on the bankpK the shore of the lake.
So it's changing people's appreciation for the natural environment. If we're going to stay
involved, we would want it to be an appreciation of the natural environment that you could
also have recreation, not just- because~ have to be an environmental agency that's
focused on the ecosystem and what all that means. And even if it's an artificial ecosystem,
there's still a natural component there that we need to support and develop.
And the community may not necessarily see those parks as natural ecosystems, and we may
be pushing an agenda that may not necessarily be welcomed by the constituency there. So
what we were trying to do is shift the constituency a little bit to be more family-oriented, not
just a bunch of fishermen that like to go out there and drink. So we're changing - we
changed the alcohol policy, we've done a lot of other things out there to try to make it more
'lQ
family friendly and more about natural environment. But we may be pushing an agenda that
may not necessarily be welcomed in those environments. We're going to see what happens
through this RFP process.
Now, is this part of why it stopped paying for itself or it stopped being even somewhat
profitable?
~
Well, what happened was the demands on the- using the lake as a cooling lake, they built
"-
other plants out there, the temperature of the lake has gone up. So consequently it used to be
a big bass fishing place, Well, bass don't survive there as well, so that's changed the fishing
dynamics there. The fishery that's there has now changed into redfish, which a lot of people
still like to catch redfish.
The other thing that's happened is there's a lot more competition. People can go down to the
coast or they go to Canyon or they go to Choke Canyon or Coleto Creek, I mean, there's just
a lot of different places where people go. What we' re finding, though, now, with this
increase in gas prices and things like that, people are now coming back to Braunig and
Calaveras because they don't want to drive all the way to the coast to fish. So people are
saying, "Where can I go find recreation in something that doesn't take me a gallon of gas to
get there and back?" So that's changing a little bit of the demand for those locations.
But the dynamic, the change has really been because of- the ecosystem continues to be
changed based on the operation of the cooling lake. I mean, the primary purpose of that is a
cooling lake.
And also CPS has changed a lot of the uses of the lak~ Je can't have-we can no longer
have sailboats and that type of thing out at Calaveras or Braunig,-.):'don't think we could
have them at Braunig but at Calaveras because of the security issues, and they have wires,
there's new laws that have been passed. They also are limiting access near the dam because
of the concerns about terrorism and that kind of thing. So the uses, the areas where people
can recreate are being changed a lot, too, because of other restrictions because it's, again,
'lO
primarily a cooling lake.
What about ongoingjlood-control projects? Are there any major plans for changes or
differences in approach to the dams or the whole issue of water management and flood
control?
Well, other than the mapping, and the mapping effort we've talked about extensively already,
but the flood warning system, I think it really is going - if we can make that work in Bexar
County, I mean, Bexar County is flash flood situation. So it's a little bit - you have to have
more real-time flood warning systems because you don't have a lot of time to react to what's
happening because the water comes so quickly off the top of the - off the Hill Country area
into the lower areas of the city.
But there's innovations that our watershed management department has looked at to try to
combin~data, weather data, with gauging stations that we have with all this
modelin~ese flood models that we've put together to run scenarios. And that's
really an exciting opportunity for us. And the emergency operations center here in Bexar
County that's run by the fire chief, the city fire chief and the fire marshal from the county,
they kind oflead that emergency response effort. And they' re seeing this opportunity that
SARA's providing now -
(End of Tape 2, Side 1. Beginning of Tape 2, Side 2.)
-for this flood warning system in Bexar County, if we can get that right. And some of the
prototypes that we've done have just been very exciting for the emergency responders.
Because if you can know what's going to happen as you watch the radar come in and know
where it's coming in and looking at what the impact is going to be, you can target your
rescue efforts to say, "Go into this neighborhood, get these people out," because this is what
the model is telling you is going to happen;l.hat will have them be more ready instead of just
sporadically saying- waiting until after the fact. They can be a little bit more proactive
about rescue effort' about trying to get people out of harm's way. So that's something that
Af'\
the River Authority is cutting edge and very exciting with the Weather Service and the
emergency responders and all of that. It's a very exciting opportunity for us in flood control
to use the resources that we already have.
Another thing is this holistic watershed planning effort, taking these new tools now and
trying to figure out how we can make better decisions for capital projects • .ftttso land use
issues, seeing how we can not control development but manage development in such a way
that development doesn't have an adverse impact on the floodplain and on the watersheds.
So those things are very exciting, and we've never had those tools to be more proactive in the
way that we manage watersheds. So that's exciting.
And of course, that's also going to be available downstream, and I feel like we're going to
have a li~~e bit more impact in some of these areas downstream.L Wilson, Karnes, and Goliad
Counties.{, because they're not as developed as Bexar County. We can't really go back and
change a lot of what's happened in Bexar County, but we can maybe proactively help these
lower basin communities develop in a smarter way because they have better tools. So
that's - for us to affect that will be very exciting for the future quality oflife of the
communities that we have here.
So for the flood alarm system, how do you-a// coordinate - I mean, do you come up with the
idea that you have the expertise to be able to develop this system and then, you know, you
make contact with the fire marshal and say, "Say, we 've got this system"? How does this all
work in a practical sense?
Well, in that particular thing, we - our engineers, because of what we have been doing in all
this modeling, this dynamic modeling program, have been in contact with a lot of the folks
that are sort in the cutting edge in this science. And by doing that, it put us in connections
with a lot of different people that were looking at how you can be more proactive in
managing the impacts of floods. So through all of this, we've made contact with- we
figured, "Well, if we're going to build a system, we're going to have to have better gauges.
We're going to have to have better information." And the Weather Service is very involved
..11
in gauging, as is the NRCS and other organizations.
So we went to them and said, "This is our vision of how we can do this. How can your data
and our data be connected up? We're already providing this piece. How can we connect in
your piece so that it' s, again, more comprehensive?" So I think it's just by the fact that
we've got the expertise, we've got the people that can connect the dots and can see the vision,
and then we're trying to put that vision together with other innovations that are being­throughout
the world, really.
One of these innovations is out of, I think, England. And we've connected with them and got
oft-their
software and trying to figure out how we can make all this work. So we're just learning
A.
and gathering and bringing people together so that it can be the best for Bexar County, in this
case. And what we did is we kind of cobbled all this together, came up with a demonstration
of how this could actually work.
So a test sort of
Yes. And we took it into the fire marshal and to the fire chief and said, "Would this be of
service for you? Do you think this would be of value to you?" And oh my gosh, they were
so excited about it and were very energized about the opportunity for them to do their job
better, because that's not their expertise. And so now they see that if this tool was available
and even- eventually the way that this tool that we're developing can be is you can use the
models, and if there is a flood in a certain area, it will be - this system will already have data
in it about the houses that are located there, the appraised values through the Bexar Appraisal
District that will be incorporated in this system so that if you want to now go do a declaration
for federal disaster, we already have the information there. You' re not having to go out and
collect it; it's all in there.
And then when you put the circle around what flooded and how deep the water was there, it
pulls the data out from a GIS system that says, boom, these are the houses, these are the
addresses, this is the data that - the latest assessed values that were on these properties. And
then you can determine at least on that, get a very quick estimate of the damage that was
done in that particular area in a very quick way, and then you can put together your
application for assistance. And then that means that FEMA can respond faster, people can
get more assistance quicker, you don't have to wait through this long process of determining
what the damage was.
So there's a lot of opportunities to pull all this information together in a very quick way by
using better tools and mapping and GIS and models.
So are there plans for some kind of a field test of this?
Well, they've done- they have one area, one creek that they've done, and now they're going
to try to export that into a whole watershed and look at it. And obviously every time there's
a big rain event, our guys get- although it's- get very excited because they can go back and
say, "Well, was our information right?"
(Laughing.)
"Did it do what it was supposed to do?'' So they kind of constantly test if what the models
are saying and would have predicted was actually what occurred. And the more that you can
calibrate to these rain events before it becomes a real devastating flood, then the better people
are going to trust that data_j they're going to trust the information.
So what 's been the outcome so far?
So far it's good. Everyone likes what they're seeing. It's still in the preliminary stages, but­we
have to put a little bit more investment in the software to make it happen, and then we've
got to finish all the mapping efforts because we're going through the appeals and protests of
the maps right now, which may modify some of the models. And as soon as all that's done,
then we'll have a tool that's going to be a lot more accurate. Right now, we're doing tests in
~
areas based on hypothetical data that has been completely finished. But as soon as
A'l
everything's finished - but theoretically everyone feels like this is a very good tool for us to
have in predicting and - predicting flooding, the impacts of floods, and having better
emergency response.
What sorts of projects do you have going on with the Corps~?
Well, the big one is the River Improvements Project, the Mission Reach of the River
Improvements Project. That's the big project right now. We've got some smaller flood
study efforts that we've been working on with them, but this River Improvements Project is
the big part. We've got Phase I of the Mission Reach under construction right now, and then
Phase II, III, and IV will come on over the next few years. That's hugSJand it's a legacy
project. It's just like - although I think the tunnel project was a legacy project, there' s a lot
of people in this community that don't know there's two big tunnels that go under downtown
San Antonio, which is fine. But this project, they're going to - they're not going to help but
see. It's right on the surface.. ybu're going to see the transformation of this river over the
nex@ years as the project goes in and then the ecosystem becomes more mature that we're
putting in. It's going to transform this river into something that the community is going to
appreciate and want to interact with.
Now, is the funding in place for the other phases, or is that an ongoing ...
Well, the local funds are pretty much in place. The challenge is always the federal funding.
I've participated in that quite extensively since I've been here, the whole congressional effort,
legislative effort to get the money. We've worked with our congressional delegation every
year to try to get the money that's necessary for the project, and we're making more inroads
every year on that. Our congressional delegation is extremely supportive of the project and is
trying to get as much money as they can. But of course, there's a lot of competing priorities
throughout the nation, so we can never get everything that the Corps needs on an annual
basis.
But this is not the time to be modest.
For us, oh, no.
(Laughing.)
I mean, we're very, very aggressive on that when '/!\go out and work very hard on that.
We're also working to try to get the project in th~ident' s budget. The ~~ct- the
Mission Reach project has never been in th~sident's budget because th{!?:tsident does
not feel that it's a justified expense because it's urban restoration project and they see it as
expensive. It's really not, and in the scheme of other projects, it's not as expensive as the
Everglades or other projects} ecosystem restoration projects. But that's changing.
We've just now j just last week we had a visit from a person who's an analyst for the Office
of Management and Budget for the~sident, puts the@ident's budget together, and came
and actually toured the project and saw the benefits that the project will have to the
community and to the environment. And I think that our chances are getting better and better
to actually get the money that we need from the federal government. But it's just a- it's an
educational process in moving - convincing people when you have a whole nation of projects
that you' re looking at and trying to get people to focus on little old San Antonio and our
Mission Reach Project. It's taken- I mean, I've been here eight years, and it's taken us this
long to continue to raise the profile of this project.
So what kind of contingency do you have if that funding doesn't come through?
The visitor tax that passed has a component that could cover some of the shortfalls in federal
funding to keep the project moving. So that's right now the fallback to try to keep the project
moving. However, the estimates on that project as the future phases are finalized - the
design for the future phases of that project are finalized, the costs are going up. So we'll just
have to hope that we can get the federal funding that we need so that in combination with the
local money we have, the project will be built on its optimum schedule. But that's the hope.
~
And then our commitment to operate and maintain th¢ project after it's done was a huge - I
think a huge victory for us because that will keep -make us in control of that project's
success long term. We always - the River Authority has been in this history of we build it
and then somebody else takes care of it. And they're never going to take- they're never
going to be as passionate about a project as we are because they didn't build it, they're not as
invested in it. I mean, we were out there every day on this tunnel project when they built that
tunnel project, and then it's turned over to the City of San Antonio, and they're never going
to operate it in the way that we would have operated it or kept it at the level that we would
like it to be operated. But once you give it up, you can't go back and start criticizing. I mean,
you gave it up, we gave it up.
So I just did not want that to happen on this river project, both the Museum Reach that the
Corps is not involved in that we're building and this Mission Reach. I just felt like if we had
the ability to at least be able to maintain what we built, we' re going to be much more
passionate about taking care of it because we built it, we were there. We know where every
single piece is.
So the Museum Reach, we're going to do the maintenance on that, and that may or may not
be a long-term.lhe fity may want to 7 because of the tourism and the economic development
and more of the River Walk experience that's up there, that may or may not be a long-term
role for us. But this ecosystem restoration for sure, this eight miles downstream in the
Mission Reach, I believe long term will be a River Authority responsibility because it's a
natural river environment that we have expertise to manage. We're getting even more
expertise on our staff to do that. So I think that will distinguish us and allow for us to have
that interaction with the river and getting people to have that interaction with the river in a
more natural environment versus the highly engineered River Walk and that type of thing.
So what's the - how would you characterize the other Corps projects that you 're doing in
other parts of the city?
Those are studies. They are flood studies, and from those, there could be the opportunity to
have additional capital projects that could be built out of those. And then we would go to the
founty or the fty and get those built with the Corps as a partner. And if those materialize in
the future, we would obviously be very involved in those as well. But the Corps right now
with their studies, particularly like in the Lea@ershed, they' re not really seeing the cost­to-
benefit right now for that project. Same- the Cibolo is a big - there's a big project that
we're working on with the Corps and other partners there, and there may be some
opportunities for us to build more projects there.
I'm going to probably have to leave in about ten minutes; I've got a luncheon I've got to go
to.
Okay. One of the things I wanted to ask you had to do with the fact that you're the first
general manager in the history of this agency that's credentialed differently. How did that
happen, and does it reflect some shift in agency culture or focus? Was there a reason it
happened when it did in terms of your training and focus? Do you have any thoughts about
that?
Yes, I do. I think that it does have a lot to do with the transition of the River Authority. In
order- as we've talked about quite extensively, our role as a facilitator and as bringing
people together and having other governments working together and building partnerships
and building those relationships and having those relationships be able to move our mission
along, it really took a person who has those intergovernmental skills, has the ability to build
on those relationships and have a broader focus than just the technical focus.
And I think that is why it was a good decision, in my opinion obviously (laughing), to change
the focus from ~ng the organization led by a technical, an engineer, to someone that's
more broader in focus and more looking at relationships and looking at the organization as a
A.
public political governmental entity and what that means and how we as a- how we can
make sure that this entity has some governmental and intergovernmental credentials long
term. So I think that it was time for the agency to kind of move in that way because then the
~
organization is seen more broadly, You're not seeingihi&pigeonholed as a engineering firm.
11'7
Because what was happening is we were being perceived as competing with the private
sector engineering community because we were led by an engineer, we were focused on
engineering, and the engineering community was going, "Well, wait a minute. Why is a
governmental entity kind of serving in an engineering role? That's really the private sector's
role." And now what we're saying is, "Well, we're using those consultants, we're trying to
bring all this expertise together." We have to be expertise, we have to have that expertise on
staff, too. But it's just changing the profile and changing who we are as an organization and
making us more in line with governments and having partners and thinking strategically and
thinking politically and thinking more from a governmental perspective rather than a
narrowly focused engineering focus.
(Recording turned off and turned back on.)
Has it made a difference, do you think, in terms of legislative relationships?
Well, Greg Rothe had pretty good relationships with the legislature he had built because of
his knowledge in water; not so much because he was an engineer but because of his
knowledge about water and water issues. He was seen as very credible in that regard. So
from a Texas Legislature perspective, Greg was a good balance between being an engineer
and being kind of politically focused.
I think what having my credentials in this position now really helps in, people see me as kind
of a relationship builder and bringing people together. Personally, my reputation has been
about responsiveness and public service and knowing what that means, being a public service
entity, giving to the community, responding to the community, being transparent,~
accountable. All those sorts of things that my background has provided me and thenlve
brought to this organization has made the River Authority seem a little bit more approachable,
if you will, more responsive, more focused on how we can give back to the community and
serve the community as an entity and being focused on that. So I think that's been the
biggest shift; it' s just more of a- kind of that personality change from being more technically
11Q
focused.
People - and no offense to technical people, but technical people tend to focus on the internal,
let's look at how we- the internal part of doing the best product, having the best technical
product that they can, not necessarily thinking about how that technical product could have
been manipulated to the good of the public by having input, by having transparency, by
having accountability, by having a balance between the technical and the public.
So I think this way it's sort of now the public focus, the accountability focus, and-tl­responsiveness
focus of the agency is in the lead and how can the technical part support that.
It's just a shift.
It sounds as if you 're also talking about being a translator between a community of
technical - competent technical people -
Yes.
- and a consuming public.
Yes. That's a very good way of putting it. It sort oftakes- it enables us to provide products
and services that are understandable to the community, usable by the community, and
ultimately result in something that can improve the quality of life and the environment for the
community. But yes, I think that's a good way of putting it, sort of translating what the
public's really saying and how we can fulfill that with our technical expertise.
Did you have a steep learning curve when you first came?
Q/j$_
I did. I mean, I had to learn a lot about water, and I had to learn about engineering and all the
various projects that we were doing. But I think that they also had - it kind of went both
ways. They were really- I think a lot of our managers got very frustrated when I first carne
about my - this whole idea of being responsive. When the jounty would call or the Jity
110
would call, I'd say (snapping fingers) "Let's get that answer. Let's do it. Let's get it. We've
got to get this to them." They didn't feel any sense of urgency to be responsive to those
partners. They just didn' t see. "Well, why? We'll do it when we get to it."
''No, you don't understand." The more that we can be responsive to them, the more they
will come to us for more answers. The more they ask, the more we respond, the more
questions, the more they're going to use us because they know we're going to be responsive
to them. It's a self-fulfilling kind of thing.
So I call it- I'm going to talk about this in our employee briefing tomorrow, but I sort of call
it "radical responsiveness,""fmean, really being just really radical about responding to the
public, responding to our partners, responding to each other internally, to make sure that we
respond and get back to people and work together so that if we all work together as
departments and not silo ourselves up and just think about what's important to our own
departmen)and we're radical in responding to each other, then you're going to make it- it's
going to be more of a- it's going to become more of a natural thing. If you force yourself to
do it now, it's going to become something that's going to become natural later.
So it's a change.
(End of interview.)