RDA ratifies Chamber Springs seeding, rejects ratifying lawsuit and authorizes removing RDA as plaintiff

The Washington County Rural Development Authority voted on March 26 to ratify the Washington Water Authority’s recommendation to seed the Chamber Springs service area to Tontitown, but the board declined to ratify a lawsuit that had been filed in the RDA’s name and later authorized counsel to dismiss or remove the RDA as a plaintiff.

The vote to approve the seeding resolution (assigned draft number 26-1 for housekeeping) followed discussion about the scope of the action; board members clarified that the approval applied to the Chamber Springs area, not the broader territory some documents had indicated "to the Oklahoma line." The chair announced, "the seeding of the Chamber Springs area has been approved." (Board roll-call totals were recorded by voice; specific individual vote tallies were not recorded in the transcript.)

Brent Horton, who identified himself in the meeting as a member of the Washington Water Authority, told the board he was not prepared to speak for the WWA board but said in part that when he reviewed court filings he discovered the complaint stated the RDA had filed the suit. "When I read that document, I realized that this was the RDA and not the WWA," Horton said, adding he personally would not object to the suit being dropped though he could not speak for the entire WWA board.

Hartsell Reagan, the attorney on the phone for Washington Water, summarized the legal background that led to today's votes: a 2009 boundary dispute and a 2010 mediated settlement that gave Washington Water first right of refusal for service outside Tontitown's boundaries. Reagan said the recent seeding resolution conflicted with that agreement, lacked necessary federal (USDA) approvals and a clear map, and—according to the complaint circulated—had in effect seeded an extensive area without compensation. "During the seeding resolution, there was no map presented indicating how much property was being seeded," Reagan said, adding that the earlier settlement required court review for changes.

After adopting the Chamber Springs seeding resolution, a member moved to ratify the lawsuit that had been filed in the RDA's name; that motion failed. The board then approved a subsequent motion to dismiss the lawsuit or to remove the RDA as a plaintiff, and authorized the RDA’s counsel to effect that dismissal.

The RDA recorded the seeding resolution draft number as 26-1. The board did not record a formal recorded vote count in the transcript for the ratification motion or the dismissal motion; the chair read the outcomes aloud.