Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Sewer Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County and Carrizo Springs table changes to 1964 water-rights pact; county to open accounts for selected facilities
Summary
Officials discussed the 1964 agreement that conveyed water rights to the city in exchange for specified county benefits. The bodies agreed to table amendments affecting the golf course and sports complex, to exclude and have the county pay for two other facility accounts, and to authorize county staff to open accounts and execute paperwork.
Dimmit County commissioners and Carrizo Springs city officials reviewed a 1964 agreement that conveyed water rights on a track of land to the city and reserved certain water uses for county public facilities. During the May 2025 joint meeting at the Richmond Civic Center, both bodies agreed to table proposals to change provisions tied specifically to the golf course and the sports complex and to address other items at a later date. The county agreed to open and pay for utility accounts for two facilities (identified in the agenda as items b and c), and authorized county staff to execute the paperwork necessary to open those accounts.
Legal counsel and officials noted the 1964 agreement used the city’s water-rights conveyance in exchange for the county’s reserved rights to receive water for public or nonprofit operations (the contract specifically mentions the golf course and any future recreational facilities on the tract). One counsel’s summary in the meeting said that unilaterally charging for water now could breach the 1964 contract; amending the contract would require mutual agreement of both the city council and the commissioner's court.
Staff provided example utility amounts to illustrate scope: a staff member identified a monthly consumption estimate for the county’s fire station at roughly $153 and for the golf course at about $1,479 (both figures described as ballpark estimates presented during the meeting). Participants agreed the broader set of proposed contract amendments needs more time and review by both councils: items a and d were tabled for further attorney review; items b and c were excluded from that tabling and the county agreed to open accounts and fund them while legal language is finalized.
The court also authorized county staff to execute necessary documentation to open the accounts, and the motion to proceed with account opening and paperwork carried. Officials said they will return with draft amendments to the 1964 agreement for mutual consideration and that any change to the agreement would be placed on each body’s agenda for formal approval.
