State board declares Northeast Texas, DFW officially in conflict over Marvin Nichols Reservoir
By Nicole Lopez
Fort Worth Report, June 28, 2025
Dallas-Fort Worth and Northeast Texas are officially in conflict over the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir, the Texas Water Development Board declared at its June 26 meeting.
Northeast Texans called on state water leaders earlier this year to discard the proposed $7 billion reservoir from planning for future supplies. By declaring the dispute an interregional conflict, the state officials are leaving it to Northeast Texans and Dallas-Fort Worth water planners to find a solution.
Board members did not specify how a solution could be reached but referred the two groups to come to an agreement through mediation. Board members also gave executive administrator of the water board Bryan McMath the authority to oversee the interregional conflict process.
In a June 27 interview with the Fort Worth Report, Dan Buhman, who chairs the Region C water planning group, said board members have twice previously declared a conflict regarding the reservoir, once in 2011 and in 2015. That involved keeping the proposed reservoir in Region C’s plan and removing language mentioning conflict from the water plan for Region D, which represents 19 counties in Northeast Texas. Region C represents the Dallas-Fort Worth region.
“I don’t know what the solution will be, but we want to mediate in good faith and create something that creates a win-win,” said Buhman.
Both groups are responsible for choosing four representatives from regions C and D to take part in a meeting, with both sides proposing solutions until a consensus is reached, said Buhman.
The decision to declare conflict came after Region D water planning group chair Jim Thompson, representing Northeast Texas, sent a letter in April to the board, requesting they determine whether a conflict exists stemming from the Marvin Nichols Reservoir in Dallas-Fort Worth’s water plan and, if so, to identify a resolution. The letter says the proposed reservoir would hurt Northeast Texas’ economy, agriculture and natural resources.
The proposed 60,000-acre reservoir has long drawn criticism from residents, saying it would flood properties, hurt agriculture, cut resident income and result in the loss of wildlife habitat. Slated to be built along the Sulphur River Basin, the state would have to acquire an additional 130,000 acres of privately owned land to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat and meet federal requirements.
A regional water planning group can assert to the state water agency that an interregional conflict exists between its own water planning and the proposed plans of another regional group, McMath said.
The board can only approve and adopt a regional water plan after all interregional conflicts involving the relevant planning groups have been resolved, according to state law.
If both planning groups are unable to resolve the conflict, McMath has the authority to propose a recommended resolution, which would require public hearings and undergo consideration from board members.
Region C water planners, representing Dallas-Fort Worth, said issues cited by Northeast Texans should be taken up at a later date when the proposed reservoir, if approved, goes through permitting, Thompson said in the meeting.
“That is not something that takes place at a later date,” Thompson said, citing state laws.
According to Thompson, Dallas-Fort Worth planners say the region’s water supply highly depends on the proposed reservoir.
“That’s just simply not true,” he said. “There are numerous other alternatives that are not as harmful as this project.”
While still in the planning phase, Region C has conducted extensive analysis of potential impacts on the economy, agriculture and natural resources in Northeast Texas, said Rachel Ickert, chief engineering officer at the Tarrant Regional Water District. She spoke on behalf of Buhman who was not in attendance at the June 26 meeting.
“No other single strategy in the state water plan has been studied with such comprehensiveness. These studies clearly support the position that there are not substantial effects,” said Ickert.
A feasibility review from 2024 compiled by the Freese and Nichols Inc. engineering firm, found the reservoir would flood about 7.4% of Region D’s timberlands and .8% of its agricultural and pasture lands. The firm is tasked with drafting the state water plan, which outlines strategies on how regional water suppliers can secure and provide water for the next 50 years.
Property values and economic development in Region D have plummeted because of the controversial reservoir, said Thompson. The timber industry in northeast Texas thrives producing lumber for sawmills and paper printing, Thompson said in a September meeting.
“If this project were located in Region C … and it would be detrimental to two of the largest economic driving forces in that region … do you think the Marvin Nichols project would be present in their water plan? I think we all know the answer to the question,” said Thompson.
Ickert added that Buhman opposes the declaration of conflict, stating the Region D group uses only a small frame to scrutinize the reservoir.
“Every water supply strategy has real impacts, both positive and negative. As water suppliers, we compare multiple criteria for dozens of strategies and select those with the highest net benefit,” said Ickert.
Ickert went on to argue that a conflict exists if more than one regional water plan includes the same source of water supply and there is an insufficient amount of water available for use. That criteria does not apply to Marvin Nichols, she added.
“This water belongs, by right, to the state and, by extension, to all citizens of Texas,” said Ickert. “Painting Region C’s water uses as water hogs in public forum is both unfair and erroneous,” she said.
About 370 public comments were submitted to the state water board in early May, before a draft of the state water plan was presented to Region C later that month. About 98% of those comments voiced opposition to the reservoir, according to Thompson.
The public has until July 18 to submit comments regarding the planning draft. The final document will be submitted to the water development board Oct. 25 to consider adoption of the plan.