Conway County Arkansas Exposed

08/17/2026

# The Water Source Conway County Has Been Talking About for Nearly 50 Years

# # # We went looking into the history of Conway County's water system. What we found raises a simple question: If officials were talking about another water source in the 1970s, why are we scrambling for one now?

**CONWAY COUNTY, Ark. —** Sometimes when you start digging through old records, you find something you weren't expecting.

This was one of those times.

With Brewer Lake struggling during the 2026 drought and the Conway County Regional Water Distribution District now looking at potentially expensive projects to secure another source of water, we wanted to answer what seemed like a pretty simple question:

**When did Conway County first realize it might need another water source?**

We expected to find discussions from 10 or maybe 20 years ago.

Instead, we ended up back in **1977**.

And then we found Point Remove.

Yes, **the same Point Remove being discussed today.**

# # This Story Goes Back to the Beginning

The Conway County Regional Water Distribution District, or CCRWDD, was established on **July 5, 1977**.

That alone isn't particularly surprising.

What caught our attention was what happened immediately around that time.

A federal court case from 1980, *Miller v. United States*, provides a window into water planning taking place in Central Arkansas during the late 1970s.

Buried in that historical record is a statement that suddenly makes today's debate look very different.

The court said the **East Fork Point Remove Creek site had been selected by the Conway County Rural Development Authority as a source for future water supply.**

Then came this:

The court described the newly formed Conway County Regional Water Distribution District as having been created to locate a **superior source of water for the area within the district.**

Read that again.

This wasn't 2006.

It wasn't 2016.

It wasn't after Brewer Lake started dropping in 2026.

**This was around 1980.**

# # And They Weren't Just Talking About It

Point Remove wasn't some idea somebody scribbled on the back of a napkin.

A substantial project was being considered.

Historical records describe an East Fork Point Remove project that would have created a lake of approximately **1,000 acres**, requiring roughly **2,058 acres of land**.

The federal environmental review even concluded that the Point Remove location offered some of the **best water quality among the locations studied**.

There were discussions about using it as a regional source capable of supplying more than just one community.

So the idea being talked about today isn't new.

**Not even close.**

# # Then We Found Another Study

The deeper we looked, the more interesting this became.

There was also a regional water study underway in the late 1970s with involvement from the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission.

And this wasn't a small study.

Officials were looking at future water supplies for **Conway County, Pope County and portions of Yell County**.

Among the possibilities reportedly being evaluated were Greers Ferry Lake, another reservoir, a new Conway County reservoir and even one large regional system.

That study was expected to be completed around **June 1979**.

We are now trying to locate the complete study.

Because we'd really like to know what it said.

And we suspect Conway County water customers might like to know too.

# # So What Happened?

To be fair, there were legitimate reasons Point Remove wasn't built at the time.

The project wasn't cheap.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated its cost at approximately **$37.2 million**, compared with roughly **$23.1 million** for another alternative under consideration.

That's 1970s money.

There were also legal and regulatory concerns involving moving water between drainage basins.

But Point Remove had advantages too.

Historical records indicate only about **three families and four farms** would have been displaced, and its impact on agricultural operations was comparatively limited.

The federal court record also noted that the cost comparison didn't fully account for Point Remove's greater water-delivery capability.

Ultimately, the project didn't happen.

And that's where the trail becomes much harder to follow.

# # Then Nearly 50 Years Go By

Fast forward to 2026.

Brewer Lake drops.

Water conservation becomes a serious issue.

Customers are being asked to conserve.

Businesses and residents are wondering about the reliability of the water supply.

And suddenly CCRWDD is talking about wells, a channel dam and a possible larger reservoir.

Where?

**Point Remove.**

The same general area appearing in records from nearly half a century ago.

That's when our original question changed.

We started by asking:

**Why didn't anybody plan for another water source?**

The historical records show that's probably the wrong question.

Apparently, people **did** plan for one.

So now we're asking:

# # # **What happened to the plan?**

# # Who Made the Decisions Along the Way?

This isn't about blaming somebody who served on a water board 40 years ago.

It's about following the decisions.

At some point between 1977 and 2026, studies were conducted, projects were considered, boards changed, managers changed and millions of gallons of water continued flowing from Brewer Lake.

What we want to know is what happened during those years.

Was Point Remove studied again?

Was it rejected again?

Were other backup sources considered?

Were engineering studies completed and put on a shelf?

Did boards decide the projects were simply too expensive?

Was money ever set aside?

Did management repeatedly warn the board that another source was needed?

Or did everybody simply assume Brewer Lake would always be enough?

Those aren't accusations.

**They're questions.**

And after what Conway County has experienced this year, they're questions worth answering.

# # Then There's the Budget Question

While looking into the water-source issue, another question surfaced.

We've been looking at CCRWDD's budgeting process.

The General Manager's written job description includes a section titled **Financial Administration**.

And the wording couldn't be much clearer.

The General Manager:

> **“Prepares the annual budget and approves subsequent modifications and transfers.”**

The job description also gives the General Manager responsibility involving accounting systems, internal controls, fiscal accountability, accounts payable, payroll, purchase orders and other financial records.

But here's the problem.

**Where is the annual budget?**

If the district does not have an annual budget, how can the person whose job description specifically says he **“prepares the annual budget”** perform that responsibility?

And if there's no formal annual budget, what document tells the board and the public what management expects to collect and spend during the year?

How are priorities established?

How are modifications made to something that apparently doesn't exist?

Those are questions we intend to keep asking.

For clarity, we have not found evidence in the district's recent independent audits establishing that money has been stolen or improperly spent. That's not what we're reporting.

What we're examining is **planning, oversight and accountability**.

There's a difference.

# # Now We Want the Old Records

The next part of this investigation is going to require going further back than Google.

We want the original **1977 documents creating CCRWDD**.

We want the **1979 regional water study**.

We want the early board minutes.

We want engineering studies.

We want correspondence.

We want to know what recommendations were made, what projects were proposed, what they would have cost and why they weren't completed.

And we'd especially like to see every serious study of an alternative water source conducted between **1977 and 2026**.

Because somewhere in those records may be the answer to the question Conway County is facing today.

# # Almost 50 Years Later, We're Back Where We Started

This is what makes the story difficult to ignore.

In the late 1970s, officials were talking about securing a regional water source.

They were talking about **Point Remove**.

In 2026, Conway County is facing a serious water-supply problem.

And officials are again talking about securing another water source.

They're again talking about **Point Remove**.

Maybe there are perfectly reasonable explanations for what happened during the years in between.

If there are, we want to hear them and report them.

But after nearly half a century, Conway County residents deserve more than simply being told what might happen next.

**They deserve to know what happened before.**

Because the biggest question we're left with isn't why nobody thought about another water source.

Apparently they did.

# # # **The question is: What happened to it?**

Send a message to learn more

08/17/2026

Remember us posting about The Conway Regional Water District not doing a Budget? They said we have not done one, but we just try and stay close to what we spent last year. Well this is the Job Duties of the Manager Dale Gifford Financial administration: Prepares the annual budget and approves subsequent modifications and transfers; monitors and evaluates accounting systems, audits of accounts, and internal control methods; establishes the method and means of determining fiscal accountability; reviews and approves accounts payable, payroll and other financial warrants, requisitions, purchase orders,
receipts and records or reports.

08/15/2026

# JULY WATER BOARD AUDIO RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, OVERSIGHT AND YEARS OF DELAY

# # # Two-hour recording prompts concerns about management’s treatment of board members, public disclosure and plans to spend millions on alternative water sources

The publicly released July Water Board audio is nearly two hours long, but residents who genuinely want to understand how their water system is being managed should listen to the entire recording.

The meeting raises serious questions about transparency, accountability and whether the Board is properly overseeing the General Manager it employs.

One of the most troubling parts of the recording is the way the General Manager speaks to board members. At times, the tone creates the impression that management is directing the Board instead of answering to it.

The Board hired the General Manager. The General Manager should be accountable to the Board—and the Board should be accountable to the public.

The recording also contains discussions that appear to discourage releasing certain information to the public, including details about how past-due accounts are collected. Residents should listen carefully and decide for themselves whether those comments reflect the openness expected from a publicly accountable water system.

Because the precise wording and context matter, citizens should not rely solely on someone else’s summary. Listen to the recording and hear the discussion firsthand.

# # MILLIONS COULD BE SPENT AFTER YEARS OF DELAY

The Water Board is now considering spending millions of dollars to develop alternative water sources because the existing system faces a serious problem.

That raises several important questions:

* How long has the district known this problem could develop?

* What long-term planning was completed?

* Why was an alternative source not addressed years ago?

* Could earlier action have reduced the cost to customers?

* Who will be held accountable for the apparent lack of preparation?

Developing dependable water sources is expensive, and residents understand that maintaining a safe water system costs money. The concern is not simply that customers may be asked to pay more.

The concern is whether customers will now be forced to pay millions because previous boards and management failed to plan ahead.

Most people would not object to paying reasonable rates for an established, professionally managed water system. They have every right, however, to object when higher costs appear connected to years of delay, poor planning or inadequate oversight.

# # WHERE IS THE DETAILED BUDGET?

Before millions of dollars are committed and customers are asked to pay higher rates, the public deserves a clear and detailed budget.

That budget should identify anticipated revenue, operating expenses, debt, proposed capital projects, alternative water-source costs and the expected effect on customer rates.

A modern public water system cannot be managed through vague estimates, verbal explanations and last-minute reactions. It requires professional budgeting, long-term planning, transparent policies and meaningful oversight.

The General Manager must understand that public accountability is not optional. The Board must be willing to ask difficult questions, demand complete answers and take action when management fails to meet professional expectations.

# # A WEAK BOARD CREATES WEAK OVERSIGHT

The recording also raises questions about whether the Board is strong enough to properly supervise management.

Some board members appear willing to ask questions, but those voices can become a minority when others are reluctant to challenge management or the existing system.

Critics often refer to this as the “good ol’ boy system”—the same people remaining in control while the public pays little attention. Whether that description is fair is something each listener must decide, but voter complacency unquestionably allows officials to remain in office for years without meaningful scrutiny.

Millions of dollars are involved. Citizens cannot afford to remain uninformed.

# # AUDIO SHOULD BE COMPARED WITH THE WRITTEN MINUTES

Written minutes are normally summaries rather than word-for-word transcripts. However, they should still accurately reflect the significant discussions, decisions and concerns raised during a public meeting.

In this case, the written minutes should be compared directly with the audio. In the opinion of those raising concerns, the minutes do not reflect the full wording, tone or substance of what occurred.

Residents should review both records and reach their own conclusions.

Listen to the complete recording. Compare it with the written minutes. Ask questions. Leave a comment and contact the Water Board.

You be the judge—and then let the Board know how you feel.

08/15/2026

08/14/2026

JULY's CCRWDD board Minutes, News the others don't bring you!

08/14/2026

CCRWDD June Board Minutes, NEWS no one else brings you

08/14/2026

The News others do not bring! Only Press Releases and Yes Men.

# NEW WATER BOARD MEMBER ASKS ABOUT A BUDGET — THE ANSWER: THERE ISN’T ONE

# # # Conway County Regional Water Distribution District acknowledges it operates without a formal budget while moving forward with major water-source planning

**CONWAY COUNTY, ARKANSAS —** A simple question from a new member of the Conway County Regional Water Distribution District Board produced an answer that deserves the public’s attention:

**Does the district have a budget?**

According to the official minutes of the August 12, 2026 board meeting, the answer was **no**.

During the financial report, Assistant Manager Sarah Ryals presented the board with a Profit & Loss Report covering January through July 2026, along with a Balance Sheet. Chairman Don DePriest questioned why the T&D Utilities figure had doubled from the previous year's balance, prompting an explanation involving year-end invoices and auditor adjustments.

Then newly appointed Commissioner **John Maus** asked a remarkably basic financial question:

**Do we have a budget?**

The official minutes state:

> “Commissioner John Maus also asked if we have a Budget and Assistant Manager Ryals said we do not but we stay as close to what we normally spend as possible.”

The minutes further state that General Manager Dale Gifford said he had previously been asked about a budget by another board member, and Ryals responded that she **could do a budget.**

Read that again.

The Conway County Regional Water Distribution District — an organization responsible for supplying an essential public resource — acknowledged during an official board meeting that it **does not have a budget**, instead attempting to stay “as close to what we normally spend as possible.”

That raises an obvious question:

**How do you measure whether you are over or under budget when there is no budget?**

# # MAJOR PROJECTS — BUT NO FORMAL BUDGET?

The revelation becomes even more significant when viewed alongside the other business conducted at the same meeting.

Engineers presented options for developing an additional water source, including a channel dam, reservoir and wells. The board ultimately authorized steps toward a Point Remove Creek project, including applying to withdraw **9.5 million gallons per day**, further engineering research, identifying easements and land, determining acquisition costs, obtaining estimates or bids for creek bores, establishing an address and beginning the process of obtaining power for the project.

The minutes also state that management discussed using **private funding through a bond** for a channel dam.

These aren't insignificant decisions.

They involve engineering, property acquisition, infrastructure, financing and potentially millions of dollars in future expenditures.

Yet minutes from the very same meeting say the district **does not have a budget.**

# # NEW BOARD MEMBER, IMPORTANT QUESTION

Maus's question is exactly the kind of question a board member should be asking.

His arrival on the board follows the resignation of longtime board member Thomas Flowers. At the August 12 meeting, Maus was unanimously appointed the district's new **Secretary/Treasurer**. The board also voted to remove Flowers from the district's bank accounts.

Now one of Maus's first recorded financial questions has exposed something residents and customers may never have realized:

**There apparently isn't a formal budget.**

And according to the minutes, this wasn't the first time the subject had come up. Management specifically acknowledged that another board member had previously asked about a budget.

That makes the situation even more deserving of an explanation.

If the issue had already been raised, why wasn't a budget subsequently prepared and presented to the board?

# # THE PUBLIC DESERVES ANSWERS

Financial statements tell a board what has already happened.

A budget establishes what an organization **plans to do** with its money.

Those are not the same thing.

The question isn't necessarily whether anyone has done anything improper. The minutes alone do not establish that.

The issue is **financial planning, accountability and transparency.**

The district's own records show it is considering significant new infrastructure while simultaneously dealing with serious water-supply concerns. July production totaled **137,560,000 gallons**, and production was reported down **21.70% from July 2025**. The lake level was reported at **17'3" compared with a normal pool of 30'6".**

General Manager Gifford also reported that the district was getting very close to **Phase 3 of its emergency water curtailment plan**, which could impose additional restrictions on customers.

At a time when the district is confronting water-supply challenges and considering major infrastructure investments, residents deserve to know how management and the board plan financially for both everyday operations and future projects.

So perhaps Commissioner John Maus's question should be followed by several more:

**Why doesn't the district have an annual budget?**

**How are spending targets established without one?**

**Who determines whether an expenditure is affordable?**

**How does the board measure actual spending against projected spending?**

**When was the last formal annual budget prepared, if ever?**

And perhaps most importantly:

**Now that the issue has been raised publicly, will the board require a formal budget going forward?**

Sometimes the most revealing questions aren't complicated.

This one was just four words:

# # # **“Do we have a Budget?”**

According to the district's own minutes, the answer was **no.**

08/13/2026

# NEW CONWAY COUNTY 911 COMMITTEE FACES A PROBLEM YEARS IN THE MAKING

**Committee may provide needed oversight, but serious questions remain over how Conway County allowed 911's financial problems to reach this point**

Conway County is forming a new committee to take a closer look at the financial problems facing its 911 operation.

On its face, increased oversight is a positive development. Any effort by county government to examine spending, revenue, staffing and the long-term financial stability of a service as critical as 911 deserves attention.

But the creation of a committee also raises a much larger question:

**Why did it take a financial problem to finally bring this level of scrutiny to Conway County 911?**

The financial warning signs did not suddenly appear overnight.

In July, the Conway County Quorum Court approved a **$17,000 transfer from the Road Department to the Office of Emergency Management**, with County Judge Jimmy Hart explaining that the transfer could be made to address what he characterized as a temporary shortfall in the OEM budget.

Moving money may solve an immediate cash problem.

**It does not explain how the problem developed.**

# # WHERE WAS THE LONG-TERM PLANNING?

Conway County 911 is not an optional county program.

When someone calls 911, citizens expect the telephone to be answered, the proper emergency service to be dispatched and the communications system behind those responders to work.

That requires long-term financial planning.

Equipment must be replaced. Software costs money. Dispatchers must be paid. Communications systems must be maintained. Technology changes. Salaries and benefits increase. Unexpected expenses occur.

Those aren't surprises.

They are predictable expenses of operating a modern emergency communications center.

That raises legitimate questions for **County Judge Jimmy Hart, the Quorum Court and previous county budget decisions**.

What long-term financial projections were prepared for 911?

When did county officials first know revenues might become insufficient to cover expenses?

What steps were taken when those warning signs appeared?

Were Justices of the Peace provided projections showing what 911 would cost three, five or ten years into the future?

And if the financial problem was foreseeable, **why wasn't a sustainable funding plan developed before money had to be transferred from another county department?**

Those are questions county taxpayers deserve to have answered.

# # QUESTIONS FOR 911/OEM LEADERSHIP

Accountability doesn't stop with the County Judge or Quorum Court.

Conway County OEM/911 Director **Steve Beavers** is responsible for leading the department, and the financial condition of the operation raises legitimate questions about what information departmental leadership provided county officials over the years.

A department director should understand not only today's operational requirements but also the department's future needs.

Did Beavers provide the County Judge and Quorum Court with long-term projections?

Did he warn county officials that existing revenues would eventually become insufficient?

Did he propose solutions?

If those warnings were given, **when were they given and what did county leadership do with them?**

If they weren't given, **why weren't they?**

These aren't personal questions. They are management questions.

When taxpayers fund a department—and particularly an operation as important as 911—they have every right to ask whether the people responsible for managing it were adequately planning for its future.

# # A COMMITTEE SHOULD NOT BECOME A BAND-AID

The new 911 committee has an opportunity to do something useful.

But another committee means very little if its purpose becomes simply figuring out where to find enough money to get through the next budget.

The committee should examine **how Conway County got here.**

That means looking backward as well as forward.

The committee should examine historical 911 revenues and expenditures, annual budget projections, transfers between county funds, staffing expenses, equipment replacement schedules, dispatch fees, revenue received from municipalities or other entities, state 911 funding, and every warning or projection previously provided to county leadership.

Most importantly, the committee should determine what 911 is realistically going to cost Conway County over the next **five to ten years**.

Then that information should be made public.

# # OVERSIGHT REQUIRES TRANSPARENCY

There is another issue the committee should address from day one: transparency.

Conway County 911/OEM has recently been the subject of multiple Freedom of Information Act requests as part of our continuing examination of its operations.

If county government wants citizens to trust this new oversight effort, the committee should operate as openly as Arkansas law requires.

Meeting dates should be publicly announced. Agendas should be available. Financial documents considered by the committee should be accessible. Minutes should accurately document discussions and recommendations.

Citizens shouldn't have to repeatedly file FOIA requests simply to understand the financial condition of a taxpayer-funded emergency service.

# # WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE?

Creating a committee does not erase the decisions that came before it.

If Conway County 911 has reached the point where another county department must supply money to address a budget shortfall, taxpayers deserve more than assurances that the problem is being handled.

They deserve an explanation.

**When was the financial problem first identified?**

**Who knew about it?**

**What warnings were given?**

**What recommendations were made?**

**Why wasn't a long-term solution implemented earlier?**

**And what changes will prevent Conway County from finding itself in exactly the same position several years from now?**

The committee could be the beginning of meaningful reform and better financial oversight.

If so, that deserves recognition.

But its first responsibility should not be protecting county government from uncomfortable questions.

**Its first responsibility should be answering them.**

Conway County residents depend on 911 during some of the worst moments of their lives. They should be able to depend on county leadership to ensure the system is financially stable long before a crisis reaches the budget.

The creation of this committee is a start.

**Now Conway County needs to explain why it became necessary in the first place.**

08/13/2026

# FOIA RECORDS DELAYED MORE THAN A WEEK AS QUESTIONS MOUNT OVER CONWAY COUNTY 911 CALL

**Three requests sent as ongoing investigation seeks complete records and audio — court proceedings will be pursued if records are not released by Friday, August 14**

An ongoing investigation involving Conway County OEM/911 has raised new transparency concerns after requested public records connected to a July 17 incident have allegedly remained outstanding for more than a week despite three separate requests for their release.

The records involve Conway County incident **2026-013503**, dated July 17, 2026, at approximately 2:53 p.m. The dispatch information identifies the location as **Koch's Auto Body & Wrecker Service, 307 Howell Drive in Morrilton**, and describes the incident as a vehicle accident with no known injury and a patient refusal.

This is not the first request connected to the incident.

Records previously provided in response to a Freedom of Information Act request did not, in our view, contain all of the information responsive to the request. That discrepancy prompted additional examination of the call and a demand for the complete records, including the associated audio.

Conway County OEM/911 Director **Steve Beavers has now been sent three requests seeking compliance and release of the records.**

More than a week has passed since the records were initially sought, and the complete records and audio remain at issue.

**That delay matters.**

The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act is built around the principle that public records belong to the public. The law does not create an automatic three-business-day waiting period every time a citizen requests a record. When records are available and not in active use or storage, Arkansas law generally requires that they be made available promptly.

When records are in active use or storage and therefore unavailable at the time of the request, the custodian must certify that fact in writing and set a date and hour within three working days when the records will be available.

The current dispute is particularly concerning because this is **not simply a routine request for an isolated document**. The requested material is part of an ongoing investigation into the handling and documentation of a 911/OEM call and whether the complete public record was produced when it was originally requested.

The unanswered question is straightforward:

**Why, after three requests and more than a week, have all responsive records and audio associated with incident 2026-013503 not been produced?**

If a record is exempt from disclosure, the custodian can identify the applicable exemption. If part of a record is exempt, the nonexempt portions should be produced where required by law. If the records are in active use or storage, the FOIA provides a procedure for addressing that situation.

But simply leaving a requester waiting while repeated requests are made raises legitimate questions about transparency and compliance.

No conclusion is being drawn at this time regarding what the missing or outstanding records may contain. **That is precisely why obtaining the complete record is important.**

The public should not have to speculate about what occurred because government records necessary to answer those questions have not been provided.

# # FRIDAY DEADLINE — COURT ACTION NEXT

Conway County OEM/911 is being given until **Friday, August 14, 2026**, to produce the requested records and audio or provide a specific lawful basis for withholding them.

**If the requested public records are not released by Friday, court proceedings seeking enforcement of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act will be pursued.**

At that point, the question will no longer simply be why the records have not been produced. The issue presented to the court will be whether Conway County has complied with its obligations under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.

This is not the preferred outcome. The simplest resolution remains the same: **release the records.**

This investigation will continue.

We are again calling upon Conway County OEM/911 and its custodian of records to **immediately produce all responsive records and audio associated with incident 2026-013503 or identify the specific legal basis for withholding any portion of them.**

**Three requests should not be necessary.**

**More than a week should not be necessary.**

And a citizen should not have to go to court simply to obtain public records to which the law provides access.

Public-records laws only provide meaningful accountability when public agencies comply with them.

**The deadline is Friday, August 14, 2026.**

We will publish the records, examine the audio, and update this investigation when the requested material is produced. If it is not produced, the next update may come from the courthouse.