Two Northeast Texas counties have passed resolutions calling for the long-discussed Martin Nichols Reservoir to be removed from the state’s water plan.
Commissioners in Red River and Cass counties voted to oppose the project planned on the main stem of the Sulphur River in Red River and Titus counties. The reservoir has been a potential project for future water supply for almost 40 years.
Texas is divided into 16 water planning regions. Each region creates its own regional water plan, which is then submitted to the comprehensive state plan.
Region C — which includes mostly the Dallas-Fort Worth area — has consistently included a recommendation in its water plan for creation of the Martin Nichols Reservoir and it would primarily benefit from it.
The reservoir was approved this past summer for inclusion in the 2022 state water plan for 2050 construction.
That plan is revised every five years, and the resolutions passed by Red River and Cass counties address the 2027 state water plan.
Region D, which includes those two counties as well as Gregg and 16 others in this area, is opposed to the reservoir. Members say the project not only would affect the land, but the ecosystem, economy and lives of those who live within the region.
Janice Bezanson, senior policy director for the Texas Conservation Alliance and Preserve Northeast Texas steering committee member, said she hopes the resolutions passed by Red River and Cass counties will raise visibility about the issues the project presents.
The reservoir would inundate 66,000 acres of prime timber , agricultural and wetlands with an additional estimated 130,000 acres removed from private land ownership for mitigation required by the federal government, Bezanson said.
She said the effects of the reservoir on the surrounding counties not only would be destructive but would affect thousands of residents.
“We’re looking at maybe 200,000 acres (of land) that would be shifted from private individual land owners who would be forced to sell it for public land,” Bezanson said.
She mentioned a school district in Cuthand, an unincorporated community in Red River County, that will have 40% of its area taken if the reservoir moves forward. This equates to 40% of its tax roll vanishing.
She also said “this is a very rich archaeological area for Native Americans, and there will be a lot of Native American sites that have not been explored that will go underwater.”
Family cemeteries dating back to the 1830s also will be inundated, Bezanson said.
According to Preserve Northeast Texas, a nonprofit organization organized to oppose Marvin Nichols, “80% of the water from the reservoir would be piped to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex to water lawns and fill private swimming pools, rather than being available for local use.”
Bezanson said most people in the Dallas-Fort Worth area aren’t even aware that the reservoir has been proposed. She believes the recent resolutions opposing the project could help educate Northeast Texans about the proposition.
Additionally, Bezanson hopes the resolutions raise awareness of the issue for those in statewide leadership who have influence on whether or not the project goes forward.
“It hasn’t been on anybody’s attention. We want to change that and begin getting people focused on the critical issues, what the alternatives are,” she said.
Bezanson said the Dallas-Fort Worth area has not made efforts to reduce water consumption or engage in conversation efforts as much as other Texas cities.
“If they brought their water levels down to other cities, that would probably be enough,” she added.
Also, by participating in municipal water reuse and recycling, the region could conserve water.
TEXARKANA, Texas — Commissioners of Red River and Cass Counties recently passed resolutions opposing Marvin Nichols Reservoir and calling for it to be removed from the Texas state water plan.
As long as the reservoir is in the state water plan means that there is the real possibility that 200,000 acres in Northeast Texas could be flooded to quench the needs of the Dallas Metroplex.
The resolution states that the Red River and Cass County Commissioner’s Courts oppose the development of the reservoir and request removal of the project from the state water plan. The resolution also urges the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex to utilize conservation, reuse and existing water resources for their regional water supply.
These votes demonstrate continued regional momentum against the proposed reservoir, which opponents say could alter the Northeast Texas landscape and impact the lives of thousands of Texans.
Cass County Judge Becky Wilbanks said that for her county, this reservoir would not be beneficial.
“I’m in favor of (the resolution) for several reasons,” Wilbanks said. “Mainly, it would jeopardize and impact our local tax base through the mitigation impact. Also, it could negatively impact our one major industry in Cass County: Graphic Packaging. So, from a county point of view, those are the two main things. It would affect the tax base, not only for the county, but for the schools. And we don’t want to lose any industry that we have.”
It is projected that the reservoir, proposed on the main stem of the Sulphur River in Red River, Titus and Franklin counties would flood 66,000 acres of hardwood and upland forest, pasture and farmland and wetlands. An estimated 130,000 additional acres would be removed from private land ownership for mitigation, the resolution states.
Not all commissioners in the surrounding counties oppose the reservoir, however.
Red River County Judge L.D. Williamson was the sole commissioner in the county to vote against the resolution. He wrote “Nay” next to his signature.
“I’d love to see it built, and I would’ve loved to have seen it built 20 years ago,” Williamson said. “If we would’ve went ahead with it when we had it going 20 years ago, our county would’ve been much better off than it is right now. It would bring a lot of development here and a lot of tax base that we don’t have.
“But unfortunately, I’ve never been able to convince people here that it’s a good thing for our county. They see nothing but the bad parts.”
Williamson said that while the reservoir would indeed take land, it would also bring a water supply that could potentially benefit his county.
“It’s got some features to it that you might not want to lose,” he said. “But on the other hand, every lake that’s been built in the United States that I’ve ever heard of that were not core lakes were reservoirs built by bigger cities or counties – just like Lake Palestine, Lake Ray Hubbard, Lake Cypress Springs over in Mount Vernon area. All of those have brought lots of development to that area.
“One of the reasons we don’t get industry in Red River County where we have good paying jobs is because we don’t have water. Our water comes from smaller aquifers, so we can’t say we’ve got lots of water here. Most industries that use water want to see it, not to say ‘Well, it’s underground there. You just can’t see it.’ They want to be able to see the water, and we don’t have any of that here to show them”
Williamson said Red River County has been shrinking in population for the last 30 years or so, and he thinks this could be the boost needed to attract more residents and industry.
“When the DFW area needs the water, it will be built,” he said. “Everyone agrees to that – even those who are opposed to it agree to the fact that it will be built when and if Dallas has to have it. Dallas-Fort Worth is growing, and they’ve got all the political power in the world to do this if they want, and one of these days, they’ll have to.”
Wilbanks said that while she understands the reservoir would impact different counties in different ways, she ultimately hopes that the resolutions passed influence the Texas Water Development Board into slowing this process down or doing away with it completely.
“We do not want to lose acreage. We don’t want to see mitigation – family land, family farm land, timber, wildlife – mitigation of all of that could greatly affect our area,” she said. ‘Taking private land away from ownership is never good. Timber is our main industry. So, when you remove forest land, that is another detriment to the tax base of Cass County.
“I would like to see other avenues looked at, like conservation of water, use of water – just different ways to fill the needs of the urban areas without taking from the rural areas.”
Print Headline: Red River, Cass counties pass resolutions opposing Marvin Nichols Reservoir
More than 1,000 Texans have signed a petition condemning the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir. This is a major milestone for Preserve Northeast Texas, a growing group of landowners, business owners, community leaders, conservationists, and local elected officials who have banded together to voice their opposition to one of the biggest transfers of private land to public in modern history. A full list of petitioners can be found at www.PreserveNortheastTexas.org.
The petition reads: “The proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir would rob Northeast Texas of land, valuable jobs, and precious water, devastating the region’s economic vitality, heritage farmlands, and natural resources. I stand in opposition to this project and call on policymakers to put a stop to this costly, unnecessary and damaging project.”
The proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir, located on the main stem of the Sulphur River in Red River, Titus, and Franklin Counties, would flood more than 66,000 acres of heritage farmland, hardwood forest and wetlands in Northeast Texas to pipe water 150 miles back to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. In addition to the land that would be flooded, the proposed reservoir would require that at least another 130,000 acres be taken from private ownership to mitigate wildlife habitat losses created by the reservoir. Thousands of Texans will be forced to sell their lands, some of which has been in their families since the 1800s.
“We are proud to have so many friends and neighbors voicing their opposition to this devastating project, which would forever alter Northeast Texas and dramatically impact our way of life,” said Bill Ward, Preserve Northeast Texas Steering Committee member. “We have been fighting against Marvin Nichols for two decades — and we are just getting started.”
At a Town Hall meeting this fall, U.S. Congressman Pat Fallon, who represents the area that would be flooded under this plan, voiced his strong opposition to the project. “I’m happy to be opposed to Marvin Nichols,” he said. “It’s a land grab …. I do not like it as an American. You’re talking about Freedom of Liberty, property rights. Just grabbing someone’s land.”
Water planners in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are predicting a strain on that region’s future water supply, based on expected population growth and continued high per capita water use. Rather than look into viable solutions through conservation efforts and existing reservoirs, the Metroplex chose to propose the reservoir to meet their projected water demands. The target date for completion has recently been moved forward in the State Water Plan.
The current cost estimate for the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir is $4.4 billion, with costs rising steadily over the past 20 years. There are untapped water resources that are cheaper and less environmentally damaging than this reservoir, which is the costliest water supply project being proposed in Texas.
Preserve Northeast Texas continues to encourage anyone in Northeast Texas or around the state who is in opposition to the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir to sign the petition on its website at: PreserveNortheastTexas.org. The organization’s website offers downloadable information for advocates, in addition to tips on how others can get involved to oppose the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir. The group can also be found on Facebook and Instagram at @PreserveNortheastTexas.
The Preserve Northeast Texas Steering Committee includes:
Bill Ward, Jim Thompson, Max Shumake, Shirley Shumake, Linda Price, Richard LeTourneau, Cynthia Gwinn, Gary Cheatwood, and Janice Bezanson.
NORTHEAST TEXAS — More than 1,000 Texans have signed a petition created by Preserve Northeast Texas condemning the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir.
If built, the reservoir would consume a vast amount of acreage in Red River County and spill over into Titus, Morris and Bowie counties. It’s primary purpose would be to provide for burgeoning water needs in the the Dallas metroplex that officials there have long said they can’t provide for within their own region.
Preserve Northeast Texas is a growing group of landowners, business owners, community leaders, conservationists and local elected officials who have banded together to voice their opposition to what they deem one of the biggest transfers of private land to public in modern history.
The petition reads: “The proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir would rob Northeast Texas of land, valuable jobs, and precious water, devastating the region’s economic vitality, heritage farmlands, and natural resources. I stand in opposition to this project and call on policymakers to put a stop to this costly, unnecessary and damaging project.”
People signed the petition at PreserveNortheastTexas.org online, and PNT has begun sharing paper petitions as well.
PNT Steering Committee member Janice Bezanson, who is also the Executive Director of Texas Conservation Alliance, said the number of signatures is indicative of how pressing an issue this is and how many people are involved.
“I think 1,000 signatures is just scratching the surface of how many people oppose this reservoir,” Bezanson said. “I have talked to people all over Northeast Texas for 20 years on this issue, and they are passionately opposed to it. What we’re doing with this petition is just having something we can kind of show to community leaders and other people to say ‘You see how easily we got 1,000 signatures?’ I mean people really care about this.”
Bezanson said the group has held town hall meetings in small cities all over Northeast Texas, and they are all well-attended with people who vehemently oppose the reservoir.
The proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir, located on the main stem of the Sulphur River would flood more than 66,000 acres of heritage farmland, hardwood forest and wetlands in Northeast Texas to pipe water 150 miles back to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.
In addition to the land that would be flooded, the proposed reservoir would require that at least another 130,000 acres be taken from private ownership to mitigate wildlife habitat losses created by the reservoir. Thousands of Texans will be forced to sell their lands, some of which has been in their families since the 1800s, opponents say.
“This will damage the economy,” Bezanson said. “It will be horrendously damaging to the wildlife environment. It will harm so many people that we feel strongly it should only be done if absolutely necessary. But in fact, most of what the water would be used for would be watering lawns in the DFW area. Because they already have enough water now for their projected demand for essential functions like drinking, cooking and bathing.”
At a Town Hall meeting this fall, U.S. Congressman Pat Fallon, who represents the area that would be flooded under this plan, voiced his strong opposition to the project. “I’m happy to be opposed to Marvin Nichols,” he said. “It’s a land grab …. I do not like it as an American. You’re talking about Freedom of Liberty, property rights. Just grabbing someone’s land.”
Water planners in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are predicting a strain on that region’s future water supply, based on expected population growth and continued high per capita water use.
And while opponents of Marvin Nichols say there are less costly and more environmentally-friendly solutions to the problem, the target date for completion has recently been moved forward in the State Water Plan.
“In order to build the reservoir, they have to have both a state permit and a federal permit, under the Federal Clean water Act,” Bezanson said “Theoretically, these permits are based on the science, the demand for water and the alternatives. But there’s always a very strong political aspect to these issues.
“Ultimately, the statewide leadership will have a lot of influence in this. And the leadership of Northeast has a lot of influence on the statewide leadership. And so does the DFW leadership. That’s why raising this issue and creating attention alerts people to the fact that this isn’t something simple. This isn’t just another project. It’s one that will really hurt a lot of people.”
The current cost estimate for the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir is $4.4 billion, with costs rising steadily over the past 20 years.
Opponents say there are untapped water resources that are cheaper and less environmentally damaging than this reservoir, which is the costliest water supply project being proposed in Texas.
In addition to the petition, Preserve Northeast Texas’s website offers downloadable information for advocates, and tips on how those who are opposed to the reservoir can get involved.
(The group can also be found on Facebook and Instagram at @PreserveNortheastTexas. The Preserve Northeast Texas Steering Committee includes: Bill Ward, Jim Thompson, Max Shumake, Shirley Shumake, Linda Price, Richard LeTourneau, Cynthia Gwinn, Gary Cheatwood and Janice Bezanson.)
Regional planners in Dallas-Fort Worth are looking for ways to ensure residents have enough water for decades to come, but there’s not a simple solution.
The Marvin Nichols Reservoir, according to the people who want to build it, would likely keep the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex watered into the 22nd century.
It would also flood Gary Cheatwood’s community in Northeast Texas.
“All this will be deep underwater here,” Cheatwood said this summer as he drove over tree-lined country roads in the Sulphur River Basin. “Very deep.”
Cheatwood, who turns 83 this month, has lived almost all of his life in the area of the proposed lake. He knows which properties are longtime family homesteads, and which are owned by recent city transplants. It pains him to imagine these homes — not to mention hardwood forests and potential archeological sites — destroyed.
Keren Carrión / KERA News/KERA News
Gary Cheatwood stands in front of his tree on June 29, 2021 in Cuthand, Texas.
The Marvin Nichols is a major part of the region’s latest water supply plan, written to accommodate an estimated population of 14.7 million in 2070.
Yet growth is only one of the looming challenges for the water supply in North Texas. The other is human-caused climate change, leading to a rise in extreme weather events. The state is unlikely to escape the hotter and longer droughts of the future.
So with the twin challenges of population growth and climate change, how is DFW preparing for its water future — and what are the costs?
Preparing for the unpredictable
Modern Texas water planning has its roots in the drought of the 1950s. Back then, almost 30% of the state’s farms dried up, dust storms suffocated chickens, and wild hogs feasted on weakened cattle, according to an oral history in Texas Monthly. The legacy of that era marks today’s water planning in two key ways.
First, in the wake of that drought, the state created the Texas Water Development Board, charged with developing new water supplies through loans to public entities.
Second, the 1950s drought was (and for most river basins, remains) the “drought of record.” Today’s water planners in Texas are tasked with finding water supplies that can serve projected population growth during a repeat of that drought.
Benchmarking the process to the drought of record, however, leaves something out.
“There’s not a mechanism to incorporate climate change into the regional and state water planning process,” said Jennifer Walker with the National Wildlife Foundation.
In fact, the phrase “climate change” does not occur in the body of the state water plan, although there are paragraphs that mention “climate variability” and future water uncertainty.
Some utilities around the country have said traditional planning — based on one scenario, like a drought of record — will become less and less useful as the climate warms and disasters become more frequent. Walker endorses another approach taken by cities like Denver called “scenario planning,” which identifies a range of possible future conditions. Policymakers choose what to do based on that range.
Keren Carrión/KERA News/KERA News
An egret perches on the edge of a pond on Cheatwood’s property in Cuthand, Texas on June 29, 2021.
But the current director of water supply planning at the Texas Water Development Board, Temple McKinnon, said the board does not have the money or the authority to do it.
“Doing scenario planning, that’s a scale [kind of] beyond what this process can accommodate right now,” she said.
Other water managers say they account for climate change without scenario planning.
“Anyone who … does the water supply side of the business, before the words were in vogue, were already dealing with resiliency, and also with reliability and sustainability,” said Kevin Ward, general manager of the Trinity River Authority and chair of the Region C water planning group.
Ward said the state can give regions a special allowance to plan for both the drought of record and a one-year reserve supply in existing reservoirs.
“We’re planning for 1.87 million acre-feet of water when we need about 1.37 [million],” Ward said of the total new potential water supply Region C has identified for development by 2070.
That extra 500,000 acre-feet is, in part, to be more resilient amid climate change, he said.
(An acre-foot can supply six Texans with water for one year. A half million acre-feet is more than four times what the City of Fort Worth used in 2019.)
Planning for extra supply might be good enough for Texas to have enough water in case of a drought more severe than the 1950s. Walker, however, said setting a high water supply benchmark and then building projects like reservoirs to achieve it won’t move the state to be more efficient or resilient.
“I admit that it would be complicated … to do scenario planning,” she said. “But I also feel like it’s going to be a lot more complicated to not be real with ourselves about what’s coming for our water supply.”
Still, Walker and McKinnon both agree the state water board can’t do much on its own to change the current planning process.
That’s because the board’s mandate and funding come from the state Legislature. Texas lawmakers in 2021 did not try to curb the carbon emissions that warm the planet, instead passing bills to bolster the powerful oil and gas industry.
The cost of more reservoirs
Texas Region C Water Planning Group/
The Marvin Nichols Reservoir would be built in Northeast Texas, but about 80% of its water would travel west to the DFW Metroplex.
The Region C water plan contains hundreds of projects that would increase DFW’s future water supply, anything from new pipelines connecting existing lakes to more infrastructure for treating and reusing wastewater.
But by far the biggest project — and most controversial — is the Marvin Nichols Reservoir.
It comes at a substantial financial and environmental cost. The price tag is currently pegged at about $4.5 billion. Marvin Nichols Reservoir would flood 66,103 acres, and builders may have to acquire twice that or more to mitigate the environmental effects.
The project would subsume 10,156 acres of bottomland hardwood forest and 21,444 acres of forested wetland. A Region C analysis identifies four species federally classified as “threatened or endangered” that live where the Marvin Nichols would be, and state classification ups that to 20 species. (The analysis says there is either zero to moderate potential that the reservoir would impact these species.)
Texas Region C Water Planning Group/KERA News
Timber farms are found throughout Northeast Texas, where many make it their livelihood to harvest and sell hardwood and pine trees. June 29, 2021 in Cuthand, Texas.
Of course, there is a tremendous cost to the lived reality of the people who currently reside in the lake’s footprint.
Troy Hardwick of Red River County bought his house 10 years ago, well after the fight over Marvin Nichols had begun. Hardwick said when he was buying the property, no one told him it was within the boundary of a proposed reservoir.
Like so many residents here, he doesn’t think the project is fair.
“They have no problem flooding people out so they can water their lawns and keep their golf courses green,” he said, referring to the Dallas-Fort Worth region. “That just don’t seem right. Just because you got money, more than somebody else, doesn’t mean you can just take their stuff.”
Residents would be compensated for their land, but that doesn’t mean they want to sell.
The Marvin Nichols Reservoir is sponsored by three water wholesalers, including the North Texas Municipal Water District, Tarrant Regional Water District, and the Upper Trinity Regional Water District. Those agencies sell to utilities all across the metroplex. The water from Marvin Nichols Reservoir would serve people from Anna to Benbrook, Kaufman to Chico.
Northeast Texas residents and businesses recently launched a formal campaign, redoubling their efforts against the project.
Some opponents of the Marvin Nichols insist DFW residents could simply use less water. Yet water managers dispute this option, given the high rate of population growth.
How to encourage conservation
Bret Jaspers / KERA News/KERA News Jace Harms pulling weeds in front of his home in Northeast Dallas on August 3, 2021. Earlier this year he ripped out his front lawn and planted a blend of grasses that can survive on the rain that falls naturally.
Jace Harms knew he wanted to save water, avoid pesticides, and still have a healthy lawn after he bought his first house. So the Dallas resident dug up most of the front lawn and planted a blend that included Buffalograss and Blue Grama, both Texas natives.
“Both have a much deeper soil horizon, so the roots go deeper [and require] less water,” Harms said.
Harms’ neighbors have been curious about the experiment, some even commenting on his progress. Yet the watered lawn is still king — at least six sprinkler systems have been installed on his block this year.
Texans clearly love their non-native lawns. Outdoor water use accounts for over 30% of a single-family home’s annual water consumption, according to a 2012 study by the Texas Water Development Board.
The City of Allen’s Water Conservation Manager Gail Donaldson doesn’t think a wholesale change to lawns is needed to significantly bring down water use. Her plain message to residents is, you don’t need as much as you think you do.
“If people could just understand that that sprinkler does not need to go every single week, that is going to save huge amounts of water,” she said.
Today, Allen restricts sprinkler use to two days per week, but hasn’t issued a water use citation since 2015, according to a document provided by the city. Likewise, the City of Plano hasn’t given out violations since 2015, a spokesperson said.
Yet simply increasing fines and enforcement of watering rules won’t change water use, Ward said, because people will be less likely to cut back after a dictate from on high.
“If you make something mandatory, you lose ownership,” he said. “It’s a regulation. It’s someone else’s problem.”
One way cities try to get residents to cut water use is by raising the price after a customer meets a certain threshold. Yet R.J. Muraski, an assistant deputy with the North Texas Municipal Water District, said “water’s very, very reasonable right now in the Metroplex.”
NTMWD sells water to its member cities for $2.99 a thousand gallons, about a quarter of a penny per gallon.
Like so many parts of creating a sustainable society, the big lift is changing how people live.
“Conservation comes with habits,” Muraski said. “Can you tell me you can for certain change somebody’s behavior between now and the future? I’m not sure you can say that, and neither can I.”
‘We’re in limbo’: DFW’s uncertain water future
Keren Carrión / KERA News/KERA News
This part of the Sulphur River, and its wildlife, would be underwater by 2050 if a plan for the Marvin Nichols Reservoir becomes reality. June 29, 2021 in Cuthand, Texas.
When another drought descends on the metroplex, people may have to learn quickly how to live with less.
Walker pointed to the example of a school in Wimberley ISD, where captured and reused water offsets about 90% of what the building would otherwise need. Innovations like these, she said, would boost our collective “water intelligence” and reduce the strain on our potable water sources.
Yet Muraski, Ward, and Donaldson all insisted no level of water conservation would make a new reservoir like Marvin Nichols unnecessary.
Keren Carrión / KERA News/KERA News
Troy Hardwick, a resident in Cuthand, Texas, is worried about the water reservoir project.
Troy Hardwick, who lives in the footprint of the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir, said it’s frustrating not knowing what will happen with his home. The lake is still far from a sure thing, since it needs to secure permits and acquire all of the relevant land.
“We’re in limbo,” he said. “If you’re gonna take my land, write me a check and take it. Don’t just keep me in limbo.”
Meanwhile, many of his neighbors say they’ll see the builders in court.
These fights are unlikely to disappear as long as climate change and relentless growth persist. The state and region will continue to face questions about what is sustainable — and fair — as they search for future water.
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines a tradeoff as “a giving up of one thing in return for another.” A recent guest editorial in this paper, taken from the Fort Worth Star Telegram, summarized its support for the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir by saying “tradeoffs are necessary.”
But it isn’t a “tradeoff” when DFW is getting the water from the reservoir while the people of Northeast Texas, where it would be built, are getting nothing – nothing, that is, but economic, environmental, and cultural wreckage. They’ll be forced to sell family lands, suffer the economic impact of 200,000 acres taken out of production and off the tax rolls, and watch their homes disappear under water.
The editorial brags about Fort Worth’s conservation, yet the city’s goal for conservation is for per person water use to increase over the coming decades. While other cities’ per-person water use is steadily going down, Fort Worth doesn’t even have it as a goal.
The guest editorial says “conservation isn’t enough” to meet DFW’s future water needs, but if the Metroplex brought its per capita water use to levels other Texas cities have attained, conservation would be enough.
It also fails to mention other viable alternatives to building Marvin Nichols. Enough water could be generated by increasing the amount of municipal water reuse/recycling in the region. It makes no mention of leveraging existing sources like Lake Texoma, or bringing water from Toledo Bend Reservoir, which yields five times as much water as Marvin Nichols would produce. The damage from those two lakes was done decades ago – now DFW is proposing more.
If Marvin Nichols Reservoir is built, it will be Texas’ largest transfer of land from private hands to public in decades – 66,000 acres for the reservoir plus an estimated 130,000 acres for “mitigation”, to compensate for lost wetlands and wildlife habitat. DFW will have the power of eminent domain to force this land transfer on the people of Northeast Texas. The editorial pointed out that the people impacted have had opportunities to weigh in. That’s true. And they’ve consistently and vociferously said that they don’t want DFW to force a reservoir on them.
The good news is that Marvin Nichols Reservoir is not a done deal. The Texas Water Development Board planning process occurs in five-year cycles, giving planners an opportunity to course-correct where necessary. Removing Marvin Nichols from the State Water Plan is an important course correction that needs to occur. The Metroplex can turn to other options for water supply.
It’s easy for editorial writers in Fort Worth to say it will be a “hardship for many” when it’s not the graves of their ancestors that will be drowned under a lake. Instead, they should listen to their own statement that property rights deserve the “utmost respect and defense.”
Because Marvin Nichols is not a tradeoff. It’s a coup. And the Marshall News Messenger should be making that point on its editorial page.
As a fourth generation East Texan, a property owner, a businessman, a father, an Eagle Scout, and as Mayor of my hometown of Atlanta, Texas – not to mention a lifelong advocate for private property rights and personal responsibility- the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir flies in the face of all I hold dear. And while my ancestral homestead is not in the proposed taking, it is heritage farmland; and only a matter of time before big cities and big spenders swiftly run through whatever resources they are able to procure from us now, only to come back for more later. That’s why there’s never been a more crucial time to support the Preserve Northeast Texas effort and stop the Marvin Nichols Reservoir.
Understandably, this issue has been on the back burner in recent history; to the point that some may not realize it is still a threat. Let me assure you, our neighbors to the west have not taken their eye off our land in the 20 years since it was first proposed. In fact, they’ve hastened their efforts, shifting the proposal from simply an idea to a solid piece of the State’s Water Plan. You see, urban and suburban communities don’t know what it means to scrimp and save, to conserve and preserve. We here in rural northeast Texas are used to making our own way, pulling up our bootstraps, planning for the future, providing for ourselves, and looking out for each other.
As a fourth generation East Texan with farmland that has been in my family for more than 100 years, I know the generations of pride and heritage that have preserved and maintained so much of region’s landscape. The land in the proposed reservoir and surrounding floodplain is where our friends and neighbors, live, where many of us sustain our livelihoods, and where our families are buried. We cannot let Dallas-Fort Worth trample on our rights and our land.
As a businessman and lifelong resident of this community, I cannot abide the economic loss this proposed reservoir brings with it, because it’s not just water that will be shipped to the metroplex, it is jobs and more. Generations of families who call our region home could be forced from their land and if they move from here, they won’t be investing in our banks, shopping at our grocery stores, or worshipping in our churches. Their loss will be our community’s and our economy’s loss.
As a father and an Eagle Scout, I have a lifelong love of nature and the unique beauty of our region’s outdoor spaces. A love I want to pass along to my children. Over half of the land to be taken for the proposed reservoir is bottomland hardwood forest, forested wetlands, and upland forests. Not only would this project hit us in the pocketbook and our own backyards, but our wildlife habitat and natural beauty would suffer significant loss. Our trees and the many species of wildlife that call them home could be displaced, destroyed, and endangered.
Finally, as a local elected official and municipal leader, I don’t like how the proposed reservoir would negatively impact our local tax base and jeopardize funding for our schools and communities. While much of Texas is growing, sadly, our region is not. We have lost population in recent years while other areas are booming. If we were to lose 200,000 acres of private land, we would lose residents who call those acres home. As caretakers of the public trust, it is my responsibility – and that of my counterparts across our region – to protect our community from outside forces who would damage our economy, our environment, our land, and our future.
As Texans we need to be innovators – that means innovation in our conservation and reuse too. Just as we here in Northeast Texas have been good stewards of our land, our neighbors to the west should look to ways they can steward what they already have. Northeast Texas is a special place. It’s a place where our community comes together when someone is in need. My family and I experienced that firsthand over the past 8 months as I was called to active duty in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army Reserves. The outpouring of love and support to my wife and kids was astounding. Our collective love and support for our region, our community, our economy, our land, and our resources should be no less important. Now is the time to come together and fight to stop Marvin Nichols.
The Hon. Travis Ransom, Mayor is mayor of Atlanta, Texas
