Reservoir built for DFW would destroy rare NE Texas habitat

By: Michael Smith

Green Source DFW, August 1, 2024

Water is essential. And yet it’s one of those things we take for granted everyday as we wash, flush, bathe, cook, drink and water our yards.

A thirsty DFW uses immense amounts of water and it is looking around for more. One spot that has been on its radar for over 20 years is along the Sulphur River in Northeast Texas, where some want to build a new reservoir. 

But people live in that spot, along with valuable ecosystems. The proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir, south of Clarksville, Texas, would displace those people and drown farms and forests.

The massive undertaking would flood more than 66,000 acres of land, according to the Region C 2021 Regional Water Plan.

Additionally, land would be needed to lay a pipeline to pump the water uphill more than 100 miles to the DFW metroplex. And to mitigate the loss of natural places, another estimated 130,000 acres would be taken from private landowners, in theory to replace lost wetlands and wildlife habitat with places of similar quality.

“The reservoir would take a huge toll economically as well as environmentally,” said Janice Bezanson, the Senior Policy Director of Texas Conservation Alliance, a statewide grassroots group associated with the National Wildlife Federation. “Thousands and thousands of people would be affected. There are a thousand or more archeological and historical sites” that would also be destroyed, along with family cemeteries and homes. School districts would be ravaged because of the loss of land that is their tax base and by people leaving the area, she said.

LOVE OF THE RIVER AND THE BOTTOMLANDS

I spoke with Dr. Jim Marshall, a Fort Worth physician who owns a cattle ranch in Cuthand, Texas, an area the reservoir would cover, according to the Dallas Observer.

“People are poor there. It’s very economically disadvantaged,” he said. 

And yet, those who live there love that region with the river and huge amounts of bottomland forest that spread out around the river. 

“The bottomlands are kind of useless for ranching and farming because of the flooding, even though the soil is very fertile,” Marshall said. “It’s going to be underwater when we would be planting in April, May, June — for those reasons, people leave [the bottomlands] for the trees.”

Marshall said that a once in a lifetime event may happen in which a person feels like they have to cut their trees, their timber. 

“But many of them figure out how to scrape by so they don’t have to, because they love their trees.” 

The man who previously owned Marshall’s ranch was told that the reservoir was inevitable. 

“He said, ‘if they’re going to flood me I guess I should cut my timber.’ The stumps of unknown age trees are still down there. His brother told us after the sale that the saddest day they ever saw was when they cut that last tree down.”

WHERE DOES THE WATER GO?

In DFW, we may not think much about the amount of water we use and where we get it, but our survival depends on our foresight. That’s especially true in a warming world in which drought might increasingly be a fact of life. In 2022, Dallas used an average of 380 million gallons of water every day according to a CBS report. 

That same year, the City of Fort Worth reported a new record for a day’s water use: 381.3 million gallons. 

The DFW area is growing, with a current population of 6.7 million. And that number increases every year.

The consumption by cities and towns accounts for about a quarter of water use, according to Texas Living Waters.

According to the Texas Water Development Board, in 2021, Dallas residents used 150 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) and Fort Worth residents used 142.

Other major cities in Texas have lowered their water use. For example, the City of Austin’s daily per capita water use in 2021 was 125 gallons.

“If the DFW region was doing water conservation comparable to what other parts of the state are doing, they would not need any more water at all — they would meet the projected needs for the next 50 years,” said Janice Bezanson. “Approximately half the water that is piped to people in DFW ends up on their landscapes,” Bezanson said. 

The Texas Water Development Board data also shows that billions of gallons of water is lost in North Texas due to leaks and main breaks.

“We’re losing a lot of water through leaky infrastructure across the state,” Jennifer Walker, National Wildlife Federation’s Texas Coast and Water Program director, told KERA News.

ALTERNATIVES TO RESERVOIRS

Fortunately, there is a range of good alternatives to reservoirs, as spelled out by David Marquis on a Texas Conservation Alliance blog. Among them are storing water in underground aquifers, bringing in water from under-utilized existing reservoirs, constructing wetlands and filtration systems, landscaping with plants that need less water, and teaching people how to conserve. 

The East Fork Water Reuse Project naturally filters water at the John Bunker Wetlands Center then pumps it to Lake Lavon. The system also provides habitat for a variety of wildlife, including a pair of nesting bald eagles. Photo by Julie Thibodeaux.

Climate change is making reservoirs an even more undesirable choice. The amount of evaporation is determined by the surface area, and the proposed reservoir would cover 66,103 acres. That would result in huge water loss from the surface as things get hotter and drier.

Bezanson said that following a drought in the 1950s, Texas went on a reservoir-building binge in which a 100 reservoirs were built over 30 years. 

Critics say, there are better options for supplying water, but a lucrative industry now exists with lobbyists and attorneys to insure laws and regulations favorable to reservoir-building.

PLAYERS AND CONFLICTS 

Who makes these recommendations and decisions? There is a statewide Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) which is charged with collecting data, helping with regional water supply planning and administering financial plans for water-related construction. The TWDB organizes “Water Planning Groups” with representatives from the public, agriculture, municipalities and other interest groups. 

The Region C group includes the DFW area, and it recommends that the Marvin Nichols reservoir be built. Region D in Northeast Texas opposes it. 

It also happens that the engineering and consulting firm working on the reservoir project is Freese and Nichols — the same “Nichols” for whom the proposed reservoir is named. Marvin Nichols was an engineer who was both a partner in Freese and Nichols as well as the first Chair of the Texas Water Development Board, appointed in 1957. 

Bezanson noted that the Freese and Nichols firm “would get a billion dollar contract to build Marvin Nichols Reservoir. Their incentive to recommend a project like that is huge.” 

She went on, “They’re also one of the consultants to the Region D Water Planning Group so they also get to help shepherd it through [the recommendation process]. We feel that’s a conflict of interest.”

Bezanson recounted some of the history: “In 2001, the water districts that want to build the reservoir announced to the Northeast Texas community that it was going to be built because DFW needed the water.” 

It was presented “as a ‘done deal,’ so you might as well sell us your land,” she said. 

The people living in the communities and farms of the region responded with a strong grassroots effort and reached out to the Texas Conservation Alliance to oppose the plan.

The 2016 water plan moved the reservoir’s projected completion to 2070 with an assurance that they would not start planning for five years, Bezanson recalls. But in 2021 they moved completion up to the year 2050. 

“Proponents of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir have always said that it would take 30 years to get the project permitted and built,” and so a target date of 2050 means that work would begin soon.

Bezanson summarized what the process has been like for the residents of Northeast Texas: “These people have had this reservoir hanging over their heads for 23 years. They don’t know whether to expand their business, to buy land, to sell land.” 

One person she talked to recently bought property to retire from Dallas, and the maps aren’t good enough for her to know whether or not her land will be inundated.

CONSERVATIONISTS — INTENTIONAL OR NOT

Texas is a state in which most of the land is privately owned. Over 95 percent of Texas — the prairies, the forests, deserts, coastal marshes, and those bottomland hardwoods in Northeast Texas – is privately held, according to the Texas Land Conservancy (TLC). 

When we think about conservation, we might think of nonprofits like The Nature Conservancy or maybe government agencies like the National Park Service. They do great work. The Nature Conservancy’s Lennox Woods Preserve is a beautiful example of the Northeast Texas bottomland and upland forest to be found in the vicinity of the proposed reservoir.

But we should not forget that ranchers and farmers who keep part of their property in a natural condition are doing the work of conservation, too. Many of them put some of their land into conservation easements, continuing their ownership but agreeing to preserve the natural value of that land. 

When Dr. Marshall talked about his property and what the people of his community will do to spare the bottomland forests and enjoy their river, the attachment is clear. 

He said, “The part of the Sulphur River that’s gonna go under would be the longest, last undammed piece of hardwood bottomland in East Texas — it’s a magnificent place.”

Remembering the previous owner who cut the trees thinking that the land was going to be flooded, Marshall said, 

“Twenty-five years later that area is completely regrown in elm, oak, hickory, a lot of ash — it shows the fertility of these bottomlands.” 

If the Marvin Nichols Reservoir is built as planned, those trees will hardly reach maturity. And the people — stewards of the land, some of them conservationists even if unintentionally — will be displaced, homes inundated, farms like Marshall’s drowned.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Janice Bezanson said, “The people in DFW mostly don’t know that this is happening, and may not know where their water comes from.” 

Her view was that the more we can educate each other about this, the better. She said that DFW residents can tell their elected officials, “We don’t want this.” 

The folks in Northeast Texas are doing what they can, and they would encourage us to raise our voices, too. 

Comment Period on Marvin Nichols Reservoir Feasibility Study Ends Fri. Dec. 1

By Mark Haslett

KETR / 88.9 FM, December 1, 2023

The Texas Water Development Board plans to publish the study in January 2024.

Today is the deadline for submitting comment on a current Marvin Nichols Reservoir feasibility study. The Texas Water Development Board is working on a study of the proposed reservoir, that if built, would flood the Sulphur River valley in Titus and Red River counties. The study was mandated by the Texas Legislature this spring. Today is the last day of a two-month public comment period, during which, public commentary will be recorded for the study. State Representative Gary VanDeaver’s office says the Texas Water Development Board is particularly interested in hearing from the public on issues of costs, land acquisition and economic impact. Comments are being received at this email address: feasibility@twdb.texas.gov. Document attachments are accepted. More information is available at the Texas Water Development Board website https://www.twdb.texas.gov. On the front page, under “Hot Topics,” look for the item “Public Input Period: Marvin Nichols Reservoir Feasibility Review.”

Deadline Friday for Submission of Comments on Marvin Nichols Reservoir

Paris News, November 30, 2023

The deadline to submit comments on a proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir to the Texas Water Development Board is Friday.

At the instruction from the Texas Legislature, the Texas Water Development Board survey comes after State Rep. Gary VanDeaver requested the review as part of House Bill 1, which passed the Legislature earlier this year.

“People in my district deserve the right to be heard by state leaders,” VanDeaver said. “Too often rural Texans are left behind while the spotlight shines on the needs of our large urban neighbors. I fought for the Legislature to include this important review, and I hope everyone will speak out about how the timeline, cost and economic impact of Marvin Nichols would impact them and our overall community.”

Those submitting information to be considered in the feasibility review may provide input on the following topics by Dec. 1, 2023: 1. Implementation timeline 2. Associated costs 3. Land acquisition considerations 4. Economic impact.

Preserve Northeast Texas, a steering committee consisting of Northeast Texas officials including Cass County Judge Travis Ransom along with other leaders to include Jim Thompson, Max Shumake, Gary Cheatwood, Janice Bezanson and others, encourages quick action.

“This is an important time for those opposing the reservoir to make their voice heard,” according to a statement in a news release. “To aid in this effort, Preserve Northeast Texas has created a simple online form that will help you share your message directly with TWDB. You can find the link at: https://bit.ly/NoMarvinNichols.”

Public Comment on Marvin Nichols Reservoir Study Taken Through Friday

By Karl Richter

Texarkana Gazette, November 29, 2023

Those who want to add their comments to a study of the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir are running out of time.

Friday is the final day that the Texas Water Development Board will accept public comments for its feasibility review of the reservoir, which the Texas Legislature ordered this year.

Those submitting information to be considered in the feasibility review may provide input on the implementation timeline, associated costs, land acquisition considerations and/or economic impact, according to a news release from Preserve Northeast Texas, an activist group that opposes construction of the reservoir.

Commenters may email their input and any supporting documentation to TWDB at feasibility@twdb.texas.gov. Preserve Northeast Texas has also created an online form to facilitate commenting.

“While the Marvin Nichols Reservoir has been under discussion for decades, opponents have thus far been able to successfully push back against the largest planned land-grab in recent Texas history. This is a chance to let water planners know why Marvin Nichols is an outdated solution to our modern water challenges and to hear the stories of what will be lost if the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir is allowed to be built,” the release stated.

The reservoir would be on the main stem of the Sulphur River in Red River, Titus and Franklin counties. It would flood more than 66,000 acres of ranch land, hardwood forest and wetlands in Northeast Texas to pipe water 150 miles to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. It also would require that at least another 130,000 acres be taken from private ownership for mitigation purposes.

The cost estimate for the project is about $4.58 billion, with material costs rising steadily.

The reservoir was adopted by water planners based on a predicted strain to the DFW water supply. The prediction is based not only on expected population growth, but also continued high per capita water use.

The target date for completion of the reservoir was moved forward in the state water plan in summer 2021 from 2070 to 2050.

County Leaders Voice Opposition to Reservoir Project

By Kenny Mitchell

Bowie County Citizens Tribune, November 29, 2023

Bowie County commissioners took another stand against the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir this week as they passed a formal resolution voicing their opposition to the lake’s construction. The resolution adds Bowie County to the ever-growing list of those opposing the proposed construction of the massive reservoir in the Sulphur River Basin. That opposition includes District 1 State Representative Gary VanDeaver. Texas Governor Gregg Abbott also voiced his concerns about the project earlier this year.

The action by Bowie County leaders comes as the time period for those opposed to the reservoir to send comments to the Texas Water Development Board comes to an end. Comments to the TWDB in opposition to Marvin Nichols must be received by Thursday, December 1. To make your voice heard, send your comments to the TWDB at feasibility@ twdb.texas.gov In February, while doing an interview with CBS 19 in Tyler, the Texas Governor stated, ““There are water needs, whether it be in the Dallas area or even in the Tyler area,” Abbott said. “But what we must do, we must explore other options before we start taking people’s lands or flooding property that’s been around for literally centuries.”

Vandeaver is on record as stating, “Roughly 66,000 of private land would be used to build this reservoir, but at least an additional 130,000 acres of land [would be] taken out of production and out of private hands,” he said at the time. “This would make the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir one of the most expensive public works projects and one of the largest land grabs by eminent domain in Texas history.”

VanDeaver was instrumental in state lawmakers calling for a feasibility study on the proposed reservoir. That feasibility study is to include and analysis of the implementation timeline, associated costs, land acquisition considerations, and the economic impact of the proposed reservoir. He posted a Youtube video this past week urging his constituents to take advantage of the opportunity to send comments to the TWDB. That video can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=_kvjR3Dw3J8 When HB1 was passed earlier with the feasibility study included, longtime Region D water planner and opponent of the reservoir’s construction Jim Palmer stated, “I’m so pleased lawmakers heard our pleas and are calling on the Texas Water Development Board to take a critical look at this controversial plan. We are grateful that Representative VanDeaver pushed for this study and is putting the plight of Northeast Texans front and center for lawmakers. I look forward to participating in this study and doing all I can to ensure it leads to the ultimate removal of this devastating reservoir from the State Water Plan.”

The resolution against the reservoir that was passed on Monday by the Bowie County Commissioners Court reads, “A RESOLUTION OF THE BOWIE COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S COURT, OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED MARVIN NICHOLS RESERVOIR; REQUESTING REMOVAL OF THE PROJECT FROM THE STATEWIDE WATER PLAN; URGING THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH METROPLEX TO UTILIZE CONSERVATION, REUSE, AND EXISTING WATER RESOURCES FOR THEIR REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY.

WHEREAS, the 88th Texas Legislature passed, and Governor Abbot signed into law HB1, the State Budget, which ordered a feasibility study of the Marvin Nichols project; and WHEREAS, the Texas Water Development Board has initiated the feasibility study to analyze the implementation timeline, associated costs, land acquisition considerations, and the economic impact of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Marvin Nichols Reservoir, proposed on the main stem of the Sulphur River in Red River, Titus and Franklin Counties would flood approximately 66,000 acres of hardwood and upland forest, pasture and farmland, and wetlands; and WHEREAS, an estimated 130,000 additional acres would be removed from private land ownership for mitigation required by the federal government; and WHEREAS, this project would force local property owners off thousands of acres of family lands, drown resources that would devastate the timber and agriculture-based economy in the region, negatively impact wildlife habitat and inundate archaeological and historic sites and cemeteries; and WHEREAS, those promoting the reservoir can use eminent domain to force one of the biggest transfers of private land to public in modern history; and WHEREAS, the private land lost to the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir would negatively impact local tax bases and jeopardize funding for our schools and communities; and WHEREAS, reducing the watershed of the Sulphur River Basin would negatively impact existing manufacturing operations and could make it difficult to attract new industry to the region; and WHEREAS, at least 80 percent of the water would be piped 150 miles to the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex, a region that could do more to conserve water and leverage existing sources of water regionally; and WHEREAS, the time frame for development of the project has been moved forward in the 2022 State Water Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir poses a serious threat to the people, economy, and wildlife habitat of Northeast Texas.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: BOWIE COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S COURT IS OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARVIN NICHOLS RESERVOIR, REQUESTS THAT THE PROJECT BE REMOVED FROM THE STATEWIDE WATER PLAN, AND THAT THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH METROPLEX (REGION C) UTILIZE CONSERVATION, REUSE AND ALTERNATIVE, EXISTING WATER RESOURCES FOR ITS REGIONALWATER SUPPLY.

APPROVED this the 27th day of November,

State-Ordered Feasibility Review of Marvin Nichols Prompts Urgent Comment Period

The Gilmer Mirror, November 29, 2023

NORTHEAST TEXAS —A new development in the decades-long fight over a proposed reservoir in Northeast  Texas is offering Texans a chance to speak out in defense of private property and against the use of eminent  domain for an unnecessary, outdated water project. The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is  conducting a feasibility review of the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir. This comes after State  Representative Gary VanDeaver requested the review as part of House Bill 1, which passed the Legislature  earlier this year.  

“People in my District deserve the right to be heard by state leaders,” said VanDeaver. “Too often rural  Texans are left behind while the spotlight shines on the needs of our large urban neighbors. I fought for the  Legislature to include this important review, and I hope everyone will speak out about how the timeline, cost  and economic impact of Marvin Nichols would impact them and our overall community.”  

To gather material for the review, the TWDB has provided a window of opportunity from now until December  1, 2023. The TWDB requests submission of meaningful input and information. This is an important time for those opposing the reservoir to make their voice heard – and to do so quickly. To aid in this effort, Preserve  Northeast Texas has created a simple online form that will help you share your message directly with TWDB.  You can find the link at: https://bit.ly/NoMarvinNichols 

Those submitting information to be considered in the feasibility review may provide input on the following  topics by December 1, 2023: 

  1. Implementation timeline 
  2. Associated costs 
  3. Land acquisition considerations 
  4. Economic impact 

While the Marvin Nichols Reservoir has been under discussion for decades, opponents have thus far been  able to successfully push back against the largest planned land-grab in recent Texas history. This is a chance  to let water planners know why Marvin Nichols is an outdated solution to our modern water challenges and  to hear the stories of what wil be lost if the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir is allowed to be built.  

About Preserve Northeast Texas: The Preserve Northeast Texas Steering Committee includes: Cass  County Judge Travis Ransom, Bill Ward, Jim Thompson, Max Shumake, Shirley Shumake, Linda Price, Richard  LeTourneau, Cynthia Gwinn, Gary Cheatwood, and Janice Bezanson. Residents of Northeast Texas as well as  supporting Texans are invited to join the campaign and subscribe to the newsletter.  

Learn more about Preserve Northeast Texas: Stop Marvin Nichols online at  

www.PreserveNortheastTexas.org, and follow the campaign on Facebook and Instagram at  @PreserveNortheastTexas and Twitter (X) @NoMarvinNichols. 

Texans Urged to Speak Out Against Marvin Nichols Reservoir: Deadline for Input December 1st

By Jeff Easterling

Texarkana FYI, November 28, 2023

In a significant development in the prolonged battle over the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir in Northeast Texas, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) is opening the floor for public input regarding the controversial water project. The deadline is Friday, December 1.

The TWDB is currently conducting a feasibility review, as per the request of State Representative Gary VanDeaver, who championed the cause through House Bill 1 earlier this year.

Representative VanDeaver emphasized the importance of rural voices in the decision-making process, stating, “People in my District deserve the right to be heard by state leaders. Too often rural Texans are left behind while the spotlight shines on the needs of our large urban neighbors.”

To facilitate public participation, the TWDB has established a window for input from now until December 1, 2023. The call for submissions invites Texans to share their perspectives on critical aspects of the proposed reservoir, including the implementation timeline, associated costs, land acquisition considerations, and the economic impact.

In a bid to streamline the input process, Preserve Northeast Texas has created an online form accessible at https://bit.ly/NoMarvinNichols. This platform allows concerned citizens to convey their thoughts directly to the TWDB.

The Marvin Nichols Reservoir, a subject of discussion for decades, has faced opposition from those who view it as an unnecessary and outdated solution to current water challenges. The reservoir has been criticized for potentially being the largest planned land-grab in recent Texas history.

Preserve Northeast Texas, led by a dedicated Steering Committee, encourages residents and supporting Texans to engage in the campaign against Marvin Nichols. The committee, which includes figures such as Cass County Judge Travis Ransom, Bill Ward, and Linda Price, invites the public to subscribe to their newsletter for updates.

To contribute to the feasibility review, individuals can address key topics, including the implementation timeline, associated costs, land acquisition considerations, and economic impact, by December 1, 2023.

For more information on the campaign and to stay informed, visit www.PreserveNortheastTexas.org. This is a crucial opportunity for concerned citizens to make their voices heard and shape the future of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir project.

Morris County Joins Opposition to Controversial Marvin Nichols Reservoir

East Texas Radio, November 13, 2023

Northeast Texas (November 13, 2023) — Morris County Commissioners have unanimously passed a resolution opposing the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir. Morris joins Red River and Cass counties in formalizing their opposition to the project, which has been discussed for decades but has moved closer to development in recent years.

 “Marvin Nichols would take more than 200,000 acres of private land out of the hands of hardworking Texans,” said Jim Thompson, a Preserve Northeast Texas Steering Committee member. “This reservoir would rob Northeast Texans of land, valuable jobs, and precious water resources, devastating our region’s economy and especially our timber industry, the region’s leading economic driver. I am so proud to see the growing opposition by our local elected officials to this outdated, unnecessary project. I am grateful to Morris County for sending a strong message of opposition to Marvin Nichols.”

This opposition comes as the Texas Water Development Board conducts a feasibility review of Marvin Nichols. The Texas Legislature has required the Board to review the reservoir in what some view as a step toward ending the project. Texans can weigh in on Marvin Nichols through December 1, 2023, by visiting https://bit.ly/NoMarvinNichols.

The proposed reservoir would be on the main stem of the Sulphur River. It would flood over 66,000 acres of heritage farmland, hardwood forest, and wetlands in Northeast Texas to pipe water 150 miles to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. An additional Marvin Nichols would take 130,000 acres from private ownership to mitigate wildlife habitat losses created by the reservoir. It would force thousands of Texans to sell their lands, some of which have been in their families since the 1800s.

Rather than looking into viable solutions through conservation efforts and existing reservoirs, North Texas water planners proposed the lake to meet their projected water demands. The target date for completion has recently been moved forward in the State Water Plan from 2070 to 2050 at a projected cost of at least $4.4 billion.

To learn more about the proposed water project, visit PreserveNortheastTexas.org. The organization’s website offers downloadable information for advocates and tips on how others can get involved to oppose the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir.

Press Release: MORRIS COUNTY JOINS GROWING OPPOSITION TO CONTROVERSIAL MARVIN NICHOLS RESERVOIR

NORTHEAST TEXAS (November 13, 2023) — Morris County Commissioners have unanimously passed a resolution opposing the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir. Morris joins both Red River and Cass counties in formalizing their opposition to the project, which has been discussed for decades but has moved closer to development in recent years.

“Marvin Nichols would take more than 200,000 acres of private land out of the hands of hardworking Texans,” said Jim Thompson, a member of the Preserve Northeast Texas Steering Committee. “This reservoir would rob Northeast Texans of land, valuable jobs, and precious water resources, devastating our region’s economy and especially our timber industry, the region’s leading economic driver. I am so proud to see the growing opposition by our local elected officials to this outdated, unnecessary project and am grateful to Morris County for sending a strong message of opposition to Marvin Nichols.”

This opposition comes as the Texas Water Development Board is conducting a feasibility review of Marvin Nichols. The Texas Legislature has required the Board to review the reservoir in what some view as a step toward ending the project. Texans can weigh in on Marvin Nichols through December 1, 2023, by visiting: https://bit.ly/NoMarvinNichols

The proposed reservoir would be located on the main stem of the Sulphur River and would flood more than 66,000 acres of heritage farmland, hardwood forest and wetlands in Northeast Texas to pipe water 150 miles to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. An additional 130,000 acres would 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. 

Rather than look into viable solutions through conservation efforts and existing reservoirs, North Texas water planners 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 from 2070 to 2050 at a projected cost of at least $4.4 billion.

To learn more about the proposed water project, visit 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.

DFW wants controversial reservoir. Northeast Texans hope new study will build opposition

By Haley Samsel

Fort Worth Report, November 12, 2023

J. Kevin Ward expected a bigger crowd. 

As the longtime chair of Dallas-Fort Worth’s regional water planning group, Ward has been in rooms with hundreds of northeast Texans upset over the group’s proposal to flood 66,000 acres of hardwood forest for a massive new reservoir along the Sulphur River. 

He recalls breaking bread with a few opponents, sitting down to explain why North Texas water planners believe the controversial Marvin Nichols reservoir is necessary to create enough water supply for the region’s explosive population growth. 

Marvin Nichols was on the agenda at a Nov. 6 water planning meeting in Arlington, but opportunities for public comment came and went.

“I’d have thought we’d have a more robust discussion,” Ward, general manager of the Trinity River Authority, said. “I don’t know in the long run how this will work for them, if it will ever get built. That’s going to be up to a lot of factors going forward. We don’t even know if we’re going to have it in the (future) water plan yet.”

Widespread opposition to the reservoir stems from concern over residents being forced to sell their land to the state through an eminent domain process and the impact on the region’s timber industry.

Thanks to a study ordered by the Texas Legislature, the decades-long debate over the reservoir’s potential to permanently alter the face of northeast Texas is entering its next chapter. 

The Texas Water Development Board will analyze the feasibility of Marvin Nichols by examining the project’s timeline, associated costs, land acquisition considerations and economic impact on the region. Officials estimate the reservoir would cost $4.4 billion to build.

“We consider this feasibility review to be an important step,” said Janice Bezanson, senior policy director for the environmental advocacy group Texas Conservation Alliance. “This really matters in terms of building that understanding that this is not the way to go, and we need to be figuring out the best way to go without considering taking this much land out of production and taking this much land away from the current owners.” 

The water development board will deliver a report to the Legislature and Gov. Greg Abbott by Jan. 5, 2025, the beginning of that year’s legislative session. The agency will accept “meaningful input” from residents, along with supporting documentation, through Dec. 1, 2023. 

Opponents of Marvin Nichols hope this will draw more attention and legislative opposition to the reservoir, first introduced in the 1960s. Dallas-Fort Worth’s 2021 water plan sets a 2050 completion date for the project, while the northeast planning group recommends against building it before exploring other strategies, including alternate water supply options and water conservation measures. 

Because federal permits often take decades to obtain, local project sponsors — including the Tarrant Regional Water District — must start the process over the next few years to bring the reservoir online by 2050. 

In addition to the 66,000 acres for the reservoir, the state would have to acquire at least 130,000 more acres to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat and meet federal requirements. 

Bezanson said there’s still time to prevent that outcome. She serves on the steering committee of Preserve Northeast Texas, an opposition campaign formed in 2021. 

The average Dallas-Fort Worth resident doesn’t understand how heavily the prospect of Marvin Nichols weighs on landowners near Mount Pleasant, Bezanson said. North Texans turn on their faucet, water comes out, and they have no reason to ask how. 

“But the people in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are not going to want to cause these impacts if there’s any other way to do it,” she said. “You’re taking people’s homes and you’re destroying an entire river watershed to water lawns in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. And there are better ways to do that.” 

Bezanson’s organization wants planners to explore storing more water underground, creating more opportunities for water reuse and making a stronger push for water conservation in North Texas. 

However, Ward’s position has stayed the same: His region requires another reservoir to sustain rapid population growth, and Marvin Nichols is the best opportunity to meet that need. 

The latest feasibility study won’t resolve differences between the two regions, Ward said. At their Nov. 6 meeting, Dallas-Fort Worth water planners voted to send their previous studies on Marvin Nichols, including its economic impact, cost and timeline, to the Texas Water Development Board. 

They asked the state to consider the negative economic impact of failing to meet water needs in North Texas. Some Marvin Nichols supporters also point to economic development opportunities stemming from the creation of waterfront property and new recreation attractions. 

Ward also awaits a decision from the three local sponsors — the Tarrant Regional Water District, the Upper Trinity Regional Water District and North Texas Municipal Water District — on whether they want to continue pursuing Marvin Nichols. 

Those agencies are reviewing data on the baseline amount of water that the reservoir will produce and if that yield will be worth the cost of moving forward. Ward expects a decision by next spring. 

“That’s why we haven’t engaged in any coordination with us and the other regions, because I don’t want to get engaged in any coordination on something that may never occur,” Ward said. “I don’t know what these folks want to do yet. They haven’t decided, so we’re just waiting.” 

In the meantime, Bezanson wants to keep Marvin Nichols front of mind for legislators and the general public. While property owners in the reservoir area would be paid for their land, northeast Texans never want to see that prospect become a reality, she said. 

“It reaches into every aspect of society to do a project this massive,” Bezanson said. “How do you compensate someone for having the home they grew up in destroyed and being forced to move out of it? How do you compensate somebody for the fact that the cemetery where their grandparents are buried is now under water? There’s no compensating for that.”

 

Haley Samsel is the environmental reporter for the Fort Worth Report. You can reach them at haley.samsel@fortworthreport.org.

At the Fort Worth Report, news decisions are made independently of our board members and financial supporters. Read more about our editorial independence policy here.

Texas is taking my land to build an unnecessary lake

By Deborah Clark

Dallas Morning News, October 20, 2023

Texas is a proud private-property state. Ownership and stewardship of land are lauded, celebrated and written into our state’s storied history. But what if the government was taking your land and there was nothing you could do about it? What if you were threatened with having the prairie, cattle and wildlife that shape your environment and provide your livelihood taken away?

For nearly a decade I’ve been fighting an uphill battle to keep my ranch from being taken by the government and drowned. I’ve fought alongside my fellow ranchers and neighbors whose property is being threatened by the government’s use of eminent domain.

In a few short weeks an administrative judge will make a recommendation which may ultimately decide whether we get to keep our land. We’re participating in a contested case we brought against water developers and the city of Wichita Falls who claim to need a reservoir — dubbed Lake Ringgold —that would permanently flood some 16,000 acres of productive agricultural land and take a total of as many as 40,000 acres out of production in our region, according to Texas Water Development Board planning documents.

Wichita Falls doesn’t need Lake Ringgold. Its current water supplies are adequate to meet demands for at least the next 50 years. And Wichita Falls is not growing. It was the only one of Texas’ 10 biggest metro areas that lost population in the last census. The Texas Demographic Center projects its population will continue to decline.

During the hearing we were told the impact on landowners is not relevant in a contested case hearing and is not considered in a feasibility study. But the negative impact on our properties and community is at the very heart of this debate.

If building a reservoir came with no negative impact, it wouldn’t matter if Wichita Falls built an unnecessary reservoir. But the people of Wichita Falls and surrounding communities will face a $442 million price tag for Lake Ringgold. The tremendous negative economic, social, and environmental impact will be devastating and irreversible to our entire region.

I believe all of us — urban and rural community members — share the same goal of a vibrant, thriving Texas and Texoma region. But building a reservoir we don’t need doesn’t help anyone.

Wichita Falls has been a pioneer in water reuse. During the 2011-15 drought, it made headlines and won an award for its efforts to cope with the drought and prepare for future times — like now — that are hotter and drier. But today the city claims it is a hardship for residents to limit lawn watering to just twice a week.

When a project that is unnecessary, environmentally damaging and would cost nearly half a billion dollars is proposed, you have to look at who stands to gain if the reservoir goes forward. The city has said no engineering company has been contracted for this project. But one company has been pushing it since the 1950s: Freese and Nichols. They produce studies that say this reservoir is necessary. Estimates like these inflate the city’s water demand figures and undercount its supply by excluding 20% of existing reservoir water from available resources. That’s two years’ worth.

Freese and Nichols testified as experts for the city in the hearing, claiming that landowners would be adequately compensated by the reservoir. But what, pray tell, is adequate compensation for five generations on the land?

Lake Ringgold would forever drown homes, ranches, cemeteries, historic structures, archaeological sites, most of the remaining woodlands left in Clay County and 165 miles of river and creeks. It would force more than 25 Texas ranching families like mine to sell all or part of the land that provides their livelihoods and their homes.

It is easy to ignore arduous administrative proceedings like the ones my neighbors and I are going through. A reservoir miles away from your home probably doesn’t feel like something to be concerned about.

But what if it were your land?

 

Deborah Clark is a cattle rancher and co-owner of Birdwell & Clark Ranch in Clay County, Texas. She wrote this column for The Dallas Morning News.