Italy's Council Said No to a Water Treatment System. It Got Installed Anyway.

I called the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on March 27 about Italy's public water system. I want to explain why, and I want to lay out the facts so you can decide for yourself whether this situation concerns you.

The February Meeting

On February 9, 2026, the Italy City Council took up an agenda item described as: "Discuss and consider necessary action(s) regarding a presentation from Bicarbus." That description raised eyebrows right away. Several residents, myself included, questioned whether the agenda was specific enough for the council to take action. I asked the city attorney to weigh in on the matter.

The council heard the presentation. A company called Texas Rebuild presented a chemical product called Bicarbus, which they say treats corrosion and scale buildup inside water pipes. Their marketing materials claim the product is NSF/ANSI Standard 60 certified, researched by the University of Houston, and "approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality."

After the presentation, the council voted 3-2 to defer the item to the next meeting. Council Members McConnell and Hodge voted against deferral both times. Council Member Panther initially voted to allow the presentation but then switched to vote for deferral after hearing it. The council did not approve Bicarbus.

The March Meeting

Bicarbus came back at the March 9 meeting with updated agenda language: "Discuss and consider necessary action(s) regarding Bicarbus agreement for elective treatment of the City's water supply to reduce the amount of needed chlorination."

Residents again raised concerns during citizens comments. One pointed out that no agreement had been included in the council packet for the public to review. Another asked why the agenda did not list how much the agreement would cost.

It is also worth noting that the city had a different attorney at the March meeting than it had at the February meeting. At the February 9 meeting, the city attorney was Robin Cross. By March 9, the attorney was Ann Montgomery, a senior attorney from Messer Fort. The council's legal representation changed between the two Bicarbus discussions.

The new city attorney suggested that the council go into executive session to receive legal advice on the Bicarbus item before acting on it publicly. The council entered closed session at 6:32 PM.

When they reconvened, they voted unanimously to schedule a workshop on April 13 at 5:30 PM. No vote was taken on the Bicarbus agreement itself. For the second consecutive meeting, the council did not approve it.

What I Learned Between Meetings

Here is where this story takes a turn.

Karen Maida is a longtime Italy resident who has been involved in city government accountability since 1992, when she successfully challenged the city's failure to pay employees proper overtime. She later covered city business as a journalist for the Italy Neotribune. She has continued monitoring city operations independently for years.

When Bicarbus first appeared on the February agenda, Karen did her own research. She looked into the product, talked to a city that has been using it for two and a half years, and thought it sounded like a good idea. She tried to contact Larry Jones, the Texas Rebuild representative, but he did not return her call.

Then, on a Friday evening, she accidentally dialed his number. When she hung up and realized she still needed to speak with him, she called back. During that conversation, Larry Jones told her the equipment had already been installed at the water plant. Karen called me to report what she had learned.

I want to be clear about one thing. There has been talk in the community about who brought this information forward. It was Karen Maida. She is on the record.

Karen contacted both me and Council Member Raymond Mosley with what she had learned. Mosley then went to the water plant and saw the system for himself. He personally observed the Bicarbus system physically connected to the city's water supply in its own dedicated space. The city's Public Works Supervisor, Jose Estrada, explained that activating the system would require nothing more than opening a valve. Mosley then contacted me to confirm what he had seen firsthand. Italy does not currently have a Public Works Director. Keith Whitfield serves in that role himself, in addition to his duties as City Administrator.

I want to be clear about what this means. The council voted to defer this matter twice. They never approved it. But the equipment was apparently installed on the same day it was first presented, February 9, before the council had even voted. And a woman who actually supports the idea of this product in principle was so troubled by how it was handled that she brought it to my attention.

As Karen put it: "I don't like the fact that they did that without council approval or even talking to TCEQ."

Four days later, on February 13, the City of Italy posted the following on their official Facebook page:

"The Public Works Department will be flushing water lines every second Friday of the month. You may experience low pressure or no water for a few minutes. Thank you."

The timing of that announcement raised immediate questions in the community. One resident commented: "pretty sure if additives are put in water, the citizens must be notified." Another asked directly: "So did we make the decision to go with Bicarbus even though the council voted against it? Why else are we flushing the lines?" A third reported that her water was actually out for three hours, not "a few minutes" as the city described.

The city did not respond to any of these questions publicly.

The Agreement

I have reviewed the Professional Services Agreement between Texas Rebuild and the City of Italy. The agreement is dated February 10, 2026, one day after the council tabled the matter. It remains unsigned. The terms include roughly $9,600 in equipment costs and around $13,000 per year for the chemical supply. The agreement also states that Texas Rebuild would handle "application for permits with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)."

That raises a question. If the agreement was never signed and the council never approved it, who authorized the installation?

The city's own Purchasing Policy, adopted in November 2024, requires council approval for any capital expenditure exceeding $10,000. The Bicarbus equipment is quoted at $9,653. That is $347 below the threshold. But the annual chemical supply is quoted at $13,057, which exceeds it. The total first-year cost of roughly $22,700 is more than double the council approval threshold.

There is another layer to this. On January 12, 2026, just twenty-eight days before the Bicarbus system was installed, the council passed an amendment to the City Administrator ordinance that eliminated the City Administrator's remaining independent spending authority. As of the date of the installation, the City Administrator had no authority to approve expenditures without council approval at all.

How Did This Company Get Here?

Before the February council meeting, a representative from Texas Rebuild told me directly that he met City Administrator Keith Whitfield through ARCIT, the Association of Rural Communities in Texas. Keith serves as ARCIT's Board President. ARCIT's website lists him on its board, and the company behind the Bicarbus product is listed as an ARCIT sponsor.

There is a detail on that same ARCIT board page that I think is worth mentioning. Keith Whitfield's title on the ARCIT website reads: "City Manager, City of Italy." Italy is a Type A General Law municipality. It does not have a city manager. It has a city administrator. Those are not the same thing under Texas law. A city manager under Chapter 25 of the Local Government Code has broad independent executive authority. A city administrator has only the powers the council explicitly delegates. Keith's own ordinance calls him City Administrator. The council's own amendments refer to him as City Administrator. But on the ARCIT website, he presents himself as City Manager.

His ARCIT biography also lists prior experience as City Administrator of Rosebud for eight and a half years, City Manager of Daingerfield for two and a half years, and City Manager of Marlin for four months. He currently serves as the City Administrator for the City of Italy. He also served on the Board of Directors for the Central Texas Water Supply and the Heart of Texas Council of Government.

I am not making accusations here. But the public has a right to ask questions when a vendor arrives at a council meeting through a personal organizational connection with the city administrator, and equipment from that vendor ends up installed on city infrastructure before the council has approved it. When the official who facilitated that connection represents himself externally with a title that carries more authority than the one the city has actually given him, that adds another layer to the question. Under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 171, public officials are required to disclose relationships with entities doing business with the city. Whether this situation triggers that requirement is a question worth asking.

I Called the City

On March 26, I called Italy City Hall three times trying to reach someone who could discuss the Bicarbus installation. The Public Works Supervisor and the City Administrator were both out of the office initially. A staff member worked to track them down.

When I finally reached Keith Whitfield, I told him I understood the Bicarbus system had been connected to the water supply and that valves were in place to activate it. He did not deny it. He directed me to the upcoming workshop.

I pressed for more information. His response, on a recorded call: "I'm not going to discuss it, Ron. We'll discuss it at the workshop."

I told him I was going to contact TCEQ. He said: "You go ahead and do what you gotta do. I'm through with it."

I Called TCEQ

On March 27, I called the TCEQ main switchboard at 512-239-1000 and asked for information about validating whether my concern was a valid complaint. After being routed through a couple of departments, I was eventually directed to the environmental investigator assigned to Ellis County, which covers the City of Italy.

When I started explaining the situation, the investigator stopped me. He told me he was already familiar with Italy's water system. He had personally conducted a Comprehensive Compliance Investigation of the city's water infrastructure at the end of 2025. He sounded confused. He asked me how recent this was, like he could not believe what he was hearing about a system he had just reviewed months ago.

I walked him through everything: the February council meeting, the tabling, the installation on the same day, the council tabling it again in March, and Keith's refusal to discuss it. His tone shifted. He became noticeably concerned.

"That is a valid complaint," he said.

He told me that no chemical treatment system can be connected to a public water supply without prior TCEQ approval. "They can't be connecting any sort of chemical without prior approval from us," he said. When I described the physical installation, he said he did not believe "it can even be built or connected" without TCEQ's knowledge. He sounded genuinely taken aback.

I provided photographs of the installation, the first four pages of the February council packet, and contact information for the council member who personally observed the equipment at the water plant.

His closing statement: "Thank you for bringing this to our attention, because it shouldn't be happening."

TCEQ has accepted the complaint and is routing it to management for investigation. I followed up the same day with an email containing supporting documentation, and the investigator responded with a formal summary of the complaint for the record.

What the Records Show About Authority

I have reviewed official city council meeting packets from October 2024 through February 2026. What those records show is a council that has been systematically reducing the City Administrator's independent authority for months.

When Keith Whitfield was hired as City Administrator in 2024, the ordinance defining his role gave him broad unilateral authority. He could hire and fire city employees on his own. He had spending authority for purchases without council approval.

Then the council started pulling that back.

On October 8, 2025, the city's police chief was terminated. When I called Keith Whitfield five days later, on October 13, to ask about the decision, I asked whether it was a joint decision. His answer: "It's a decision made by policy." He did not reference a council vote or council authorization. He described it as an administrative action.

Nineteen days later, on October 27, 2025, the council passed Ordinance 2025-1027-01, amending the City Administrator's powers and duties. The amendment specified that removing any city employee classified as an "officer" under Chapter 22 of the Texas Local Government Code now requires a two-thirds vote of the city council. The City Administrator can only recommend the removal.

On January 12, 2026, the council went further. They passed an amendment requiring the City Administrator to "recommend to the Mayor and City Council the appointment, promotion, discipline, suspension or termination" of specifically the Public Works Director, the City Secretary, and the Chief of Police. The same amendment eliminated the City Administrator's independent purchasing authority. That vote passed 3-2.

There is an additional wrinkle here. Italy does not currently have a separate Public Works Director. Keith Whitfield serves in that role himself, alongside his City Administrator duties. The ordinance requiring council oversight of the Public Works Director position is, in practical terms, requiring council oversight of Keith Whitfield in his other hat.

Twenty-eight days later, a chemical treatment system was installed on the city's public water supply without council approval.

I want to be clear about what this timeline means. The council had been actively reining in the City Administrator's independent authority. They had stripped his unilateral purchasing power. They had required him to go through the council for major personnel decisions. Then, twenty-eight days after the most recent restriction, equipment was installed on city infrastructure that the council had specifically deferred acting on.

Who Was Watching the Water?

There is one more detail from the city records that I think residents should know about.

Italy's former Public Works Director, James Wallingsford, left that position at some point between late 2024 and mid-2025. The city did not hire a replacement director. Instead, Keith Whitfield assumed the Public Works Director role himself, in addition to his duties as City Administrator. Jose Estrada serves as Public Works Supervisor under him. But Wallingsford did not leave the city entirely. He returned as an independent contractor.

City records show that on July 10, 2025, Wallingsford signed a consulting agreement with the City of Italy. His contracted services are listed as bacteriological sampling, TCEQ compliance, and water and wastewater systems support. His rate is $650 per month. He is available from 3:45 PM until the end of the day only.

City financial records from the March 9 council packet confirm three consecutive monthly payments to Wallingsford during the Bicarbus installation window: $650 on January 5, $650 on January 30, and $650 on February 2. The February invoice was paid by check on February 11, two days after the Bicarbus system was installed at the water plant. His invoice number for that payment was JW-0008, meaning he had been billing the city consistently for at least eight months.

I do not know what role, if any, Wallingsford had in the decision to install Bicarbus or whether he was aware it was happening. I did not reach out to him separately because I had already contacted the City Administrator directly. Keith Whitfield's response, as noted above, was to refuse to discuss it.

But the question is worth asking. The city was paying someone to help ensure regulatory compliance with TCEQ on water matters. During that same period, a chemical treatment system was connected to the public water supply without TCEQ's knowledge or approval. Was the TCEQ compliance consultant aware? Was he consulted? If so, what did he advise? If not, why not?

There is one more detail from the March financial records worth noting. In February 2026, the city purchased six 150-pound chlorine gas cylinders, nine water chlorine bottles, and seven sewer chlorine bottles from its regular supplier. Total chlorine spending that month was roughly $2,000. If the Bicarbus system had been activated, the company's own marketing materials claim it reduces chlorine usage by 75%. The continued purchase of chlorine at what appears to be a normal rate is consistent with the claim that the valves were not opened. But it also means a chemical treatment system sits connected to the city's water supply, doing nothing, while the city continues to buy chlorine as if it were not there.

What the Law Says

I spent time researching the specific Texas laws that may apply here, and I want to share what I found.

Under Texas Health and Safety Code Section 341.035, a person may not begin construction on a public drinking water supply system unless the TCEQ executive director approves the plans first. The implementing regulation, 30 TAC Section 290.39(j), goes further: public water systems "shall not institute significant changes in existing systems or supplies without the prior approval of the executive director." Adding a new chemical injection system qualifies as a significant change.

Section 341.0351 of the Health and Safety Code requires utilities to notify the executive director prior to making any significant change or addition to the system. Violating this notification requirement is a criminal offense under Section 341.047, classified as a Class C misdemeanor. Each day of a continuing violation is considered a separate offense.

Then there is the question of municipal authority. Italy is a Type A General Law municipality. Under this form of government, the city council is the legislative authority. A city administrator, unlike a city manager, does not have independent statutory authority to authorize infrastructure modifications or enter into contracts. The administrator's authority is limited to what the council explicitly delegates. As I noted above, Italy's City Administrator lists himself as "City Manager" on the ARCIT website, but the city's own ordinances use the term "City Administrator." The distinction is not cosmetic. It is the difference between an executive who can act independently and one who serves at the direction of the council. When the council tables a matter, that is a direct exercise of their authority to withhold approval. Proceeding anyway raises serious questions about whether the action was taken without legal authority.

The city's own ordinances reinforce this point. As I described above, the council had been actively narrowing the City Administrator's independent authority for months. The purchasing policy requires council approval above $10,000. The most recent ordinance amendment eliminated independent spending authority entirely. The council had tabled Bicarbus twice. Under Dillon's Rule, which governs general law cities in Texas, a city administrator can only exercise the authority that the council has specifically granted. By the time this equipment was installed, that authority had been reduced to the point that the City Administrator could not even approve an expenditure without the council's blessing.

What Italy Residents Should Know

I want to be clear about the current situation. Based on the information I have, the Bicarbus system is physically connected to the water supply, but the valves that would activate it have reportedly not been turned on. I have no confirmed evidence that the chemical has entered the water supply.

However, a resident has reported brown water from her tap, and the city was flushing water lines around the same time the system was installed. I cannot prove a connection, but the timing is worth noting.

Italy's water system has been under significant stress. In 2020 and 2021, TCEQ took enforcement action against the city for E. coli levels that reached ten times the permitted limit. That resulted in a penalty of $13,500. Water loss has increased significantly in recent years. Water rates have nearly doubled since 2022. The city has taken on bond debt for a new elevated storage tank, replaced a failed well pump at a cost of roughly $136,000, and is participating in a regional water supply feasibility study with seventeen other entities.

I mention all of this because it provides context. Italy has real water infrastructure challenges. A product that promises to reduce chlorine usage, eliminate scale, and improve water quality might sound attractive to city officials dealing with an aging system. I understand that. But the process matters. There is a reason TCEQ requires approval before connecting anything to a public water supply. The health and safety of every person on that system depends on it.

In his own September 2024 budget letter, the City Administrator cited TCEQ as a potential partner for water infrastructure improvements. Seventeen months later, TCEQ was not even notified that a new chemical system had been connected to the water supply they regulate. That gap between stated intent and actual practice is something residents deserve an explanation for.

A workshop to discuss Bicarbus is scheduled for April 13, 2026 at 5:30 PM at Italy City Hall. I plan to attend and record that session so the public can hear the information directly.

How to File a TCEQ Complaint

If you are an Italy water consumer and you have concerns about your water, you have every right to contact TCEQ directly. Here is how I did it, and how you can too.

Phone: Call the TCEQ main switchboard at 512-239-1000. Tell them you have a concern about your public water supply and that you are in Ellis County. They will route you to the appropriate investigator. That is exactly what I did, and I was speaking with someone knowledgeable within minutes.

Online: Visit www.tceq.texas.gov and search for "file a complaint." You can submit a complaint through their online environmental complaint system. Be as specific as possible about what you have observed and when.

What to include: If you have noticed any of the following, document it and include the details:

• Abnormal water discoloration (outside of routine main breaks and boil notices)
• Unusual or new odors from tap water
• Abnormal discoloration of clothing beyond what you normally experience
• Unexplained changes in skin conditions or other health factors
• Excessive or unusual water line flushing activity by the city

Document everything. Take photos of discolored water with a timestamp. Write down the dates. Save any notices from the city about flushing or water quality. TCEQ investigators rely on documentation from residents to build their case, and the more specific you are, the more it helps.

Contact us. If it is easier for you to reach out to us first, you can send your information to [email protected]. We will relay it to the TCEQ investigator assigned to this case.

This is an actively developing situation. I will continue to relay updates to the community as I have more information. The April 13 workshop is the next milestone, and I intend to be there.