Stirred by a congressman's strong words, Dallas City Council members said no on Wednesday [January 7] to becoming a partner in a proposed northeast Texas reservoir -- at least for now. Council members said they would not vote to spend $600,000 to pay the city's share of planning for the Marvin Nichols Reservoir, which water planners are pushing as a future water supply for urban North Texas.

After hearing nearly every council member speak against the idea and hearing U.S. Rep. Max Sandlin, D-Marshall, declare the project politically dead, City Manager Ted Benavides said he would not place the item on next week's agenda.

The council's objections were a major victory for northeast Texas landowners, timber companies, environmental groups and others who have fought the Marvin Nichols project for three years.

Environmentalists told the council that numerous options could supply Dallas' future water needs without the habitat loss and local disruptions of building the 100-square-mile lake on the Sulphur River, about 150 miles northeast of Dallas. But it was Mr. Sandlin, whose district includes the proposed lake site and the existing northeast Texas reservoirs, who seemed to make the difference for the council.

Mr. Sandlin said Dallas would be foolish to spend money on Marvin Nichols, now or later. The project is so reviled in northeast Texas, he said, that the proposal is doomed -- something he said he has made clear to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which would have to issue a permit. "There's no reason to cause these problems for a lake that's not ever going to be built," Mr. Sandlin said. "We see the entire project as pure folly, as a waste of taxpayers' dollars. You just might as well burn that $600,000."

Several council members said the congressman's stand was enough to settle the issue. "That's pretty unambiguous to me," council member Gary Griffith said.

Council member Bill Blaydes concurred. "Why do I want to spend $600,000 for a study on water when I have a member of the U.S. House of Representatives standing before us and saying, 'Friend, that baby ain't going to get built'?" Mr. Blaydes asked.

Not all the council members were ready to shut the door on Marvin Nichols, which is the controversial linchpin of a state-mandated regional water plan for urban North Texas. Several said they feared that Dallas might be shut out later if other options -- such as tapping existing reservoirs and cracking down on water waste -- don't work out.

Council member Ed Oakley, who said he favored spending the money, warned that Dallas would have to pay up now if it wanted a voice in the planning -- or a share of the water. Council member Sandy Greyson said she shared that worry, though she added that she opposed spending the money now.

But Mr. Sandlin said fears that other participants would shut Dallas out were unfounded. "When you show up with a check, you get a place at the table," he said.

The feasibility study on Marvin Nichols is a joint effort of the Sulphur River Basin Authority and major public water systems in urban North Texas. Robert Johnson, Dallas' water chief, said the city has been a nonvoting, nonpaying partner until now and apparently would keep that status.

The ongoing saga of the Marvin Nichols Resevoir took another twist Wednesday, as the Dallas City Council decided not to become a partner in the reservoir, at least for now. Council members said they would not vote to spend $600,000 to pay the city's share of a feasibility study for the Marvin Nichools Reservoir, which water planners are touting as a future water supply for urban North Texas. The feasibility study is estimated to cost $4 million from now through 2006.

After hearing nearly every council member speak against the idea and hearing U.S. Rep. Max Sandlin (D-Marshall) declare the project politically dead, Dallas City Manager Ted Benavides said he would not place the item on the next council agenda.

"I was not expecting that decision," said Sulphur River Basin Authority (SRBA) President Judy Lee, Mount Pleasant resident. "I was a little surprised. We'll evaluate other options in terms of funding at this time."

The feasibility study on Marvin Nichols is required in advance of the filing of any formal permit application to build the reservoir. The study is a joint effort of the SRBA and the North Texas Municipal Water District, Tarrant Regional Water District, Upper Trinity Regional Water District and the City of Irving. Dallas was to be the fifth partner.

Sandlin made a personal appearance at the council meeting, telling members that the project is so reviled in Northeast Texas that the proposal is doomed. He indicated that he has made that sentiment clear to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which would have to issue a permit. "There's no reason to cause these problems for a lake that's not ever going to be built," Sandlin said. "We see the entire project as pure folly, as a waste of taxpayers' dollars. You might as well burn that $600,000."

Sandlin's impassioned presentation seemed to make the most significant impact on the group, as council member Gary Griffith said, "That's pretty unambiguous to me." When asked her reaction to Sandlin's personal appearance at the council meeting, Lee said only, "No comment."

Sandlin's district includes the proposed site of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir as well as the existing Cooper Lake/Lake Jim Chapman and Wright Patman Reservoir. The majority of the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir would be in Titus and Red River Counties, with some of the lake in Franklin and Morris Counties. However, with Texas' congressional redistricting map being upheld, the reservoir will move out of Sandlin's district and into the Fourth Congressional District.

Calling the reservoir an "unnecessary and costly attempt to steal water from rural Northeast Texas," Sandlin has led the fight against the Marvin Nichols Reservoir for years and has been involved in previous successful efforts to halt action on the project.

[COMMENT: Is this correct? Has Sandlin been fighting against this "for years"? I thought he stepped in only in 2002, during the peak of the debate concerning the reservoir. R]

Sandlin cited the potential loss of up to $275 million per year and 1,300 jobs in the timber industry from the reservoir construction and the amount of land that would be lost and condemned through mitigation. "We certainly appreciate the City of Dallas pausing in order to examine other potential water sources," he said. "As good neighbors and East Texans, it is now our obligation and duty to work with Dallas in attempting to locate other water sources which are available, affordable and dependable."

The feasibility study is already underway, with an economic impact study completed. The study will also look at a reservoir site location, the reservoir yield, surveys and land data research, and initial permit application actions, including hydrology review, archaeological investigation, and habitat and wetlands investigation.

It is estimated that it will take 15 years to plan the Marvin Nichols Reservoir and another 10-15 years to construct and fill it. The 70,000-acre lake would cost an estimated $1.7 billion to build, $460 million cost for the reservoir and $1.3 billion for pipeline and pump station costs.

Some Dallas city council members expressed concern at completely shutting the door on Marvin Nichols, which is part of the state-mandated water plan. Several said they feared that Dallas might be shut out later if other options such as tapping existing reservoirs and cracking down on water waste don't work out.

Tommy Spruill, executive director of the Titus County Fresh Water Supply District No. 1, said the Dallas council's decision shouldn't affect the SRBA feasibility study. "It won't affect the program because they were just one of five entities participating," Spruill said. "I don't think that Dallas not coming to the table is going to affect the project going forward. The other entities will carry on."

Spruill said that he is in favor of building the Marvin Nichols Reservoir for two reasons. "First, to have future industrial growth, we're going to need more water," he said. "Right now, we don't have any extra water. We have enough for our current needs and enough in the future is everything stays the same. The second reason, from a selfish standpoint, is that it would be great to be connected to an alternaate independent water supply. All the water right now comes out of one pond: Lake Bob Sandlin."

The lake is in the water plan for both water planning group Region D, encompassing Northeast Texas, and Region C, covering the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex. The reservoir was originally approved as a potential water source in 1969 by the Texas Water Development Board. If built, the $1.7 billion cost would be funded by the Dallas area. Region C would receive 80 percent of the water, while the balance would remain in Region D. Last year, the Region D Water Planning Group downgraded the reservoir from "proposed" to "potential" in its regional plan.

The Marvin Nichols Reservoir would not be a Corps-owned and operated lake, with the SRBA maintaining operational control, allowing for private development around the reservoir. The SRBA-commissioned economic study showed an impact of $242 million in new economic activity supporting 2,800 jobs and a $60 milliion increase in labor income.

The SRBA was created by the Texas Legislature in 1985, and its six members are appointed by the governor to two-year terms. The SRBA is composed of residents of Northeast Texas and oversees control of the development of the Sulphur River basin water resources.

DALLAS -- The Dallas City Council decided Wednesday [January 7] not to fund its share of a feasibility study of controversial Marvin Nichols Reservoir. During a briefing session Wednesday, the Council said there was not enough information presented on the reservoir, a proposal by the state to address long-term water needs in the Dallas vicinity, to allocate $600,000 to the lake, which may not even get built.

"I would rather spend $600,000 on something that is in existence," said Councilman Bill Blaydes. "I would rather spend $600,000 on desalination ... when I know the water is there."

Dallas Water Utilities made the request to the Council to allocate its 15-percent share to the study in conjunction with four other water entitites -- the Upper Trinity Regional Water District, the City of Irving, the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Tarrant Regional Water District, in partnership with the Sulphur River Basin Authority, which would be in control of the reservoir.

The item was originally considered for a vote in December, but Dallas Mayor Laura Miller pulled it because of increasing controversy. SRBA Executive Director Michael Burke said the formal request to the Council was a housekeeping issue, but wording on the agenda led opposition members to believe the authority was trying to get permits to build the reservoir.

Between 50-75 opponents showed up for Wednesday's briefing. Max Shumake of De Kalb, Texas, president of the Sulphur Oversight Society, and others were pleased with the Council's decision. "They're going to do a better job of being neighbors to us, and I appreciate that," said Shumake.

During the meeting, the Council asked when the Region C Water Planning Group had to have a decision on the reservoir. It was noted that there is a 2005 deadline to have the plan in place. The reservoir is still in Region C and the state's water plan. But last year, the Region D Water Planning Group, which is where the reservoir would be located, moved it down from proposed status to potential.

"They're (Dallas) going to give them (Region C) the two years (before making a decision)," said Shumake. "They also said they wanted to see alternate plans researched."

Robert Johnson, interim director of Dallas Water Utilities, presented his case on why the city should allocate the money. "A water supply must be in place before growth," he said. "It is important for Dallas." Johnson said based on population projections, Dallas' current water supply will last through about 2025-2030. "Planning efforts have benefited Dallas since the 1950s," said Johnson. "The population is growing faster than anticipated."

However, he said, the reservoir is not the only option to be examined. He said conservation, water reuse and other lakes are important factors to consider. "Dallas will need Marvin Nichols in addition to other supplies," said Robert Johnson. He said Marvin Nichols was originally approved as a water source in 1969 and is one of eight in the current state plan.

Robert Johnson said 80 percent of the $1.7 billion construction and 80 percent of the water would go to Region C, while 20 percent of the funding and 20 percent of the water would fall to Region D. "Dallas, I believe, should continue to be part of the planning effort for Marvin Nichols," he said.

The opposing side was presented by a coalition of leaders. Beth Johnson, the principal of Down-to-Earth Freelance Issue Advocacy, said the debate needed to be focused off the reservoir. "We all share the goal of, we want to meet Dallas' water needs," she said. Beth Johnson said Marvin Nichols would cost more than reuse, Lake Texoma supply, existing reservoirs in the Sulphur River Basin and water use efficiency measures. "Nichols is a more harmful option," she said.

She also noted an economic impact study previously done by Weihuan Xu, Ph.D., the principal economist for the Texas Forest Service, who said "the forest industry and the local economy would incur significant losses." She said the reservoir would cause great loss to the timber industry, ranching, farming, hunting leases, tax rolls, the environment and wildlife habitat. "We feel it is premature to invest in this option right now," said Beth Johnson. "It's $600,000 to pursue a specific option when others have not been committed."

Janice Bezanson, the executive director of the Texas Committee on Natural Resources, outlined several other options, which included water reuse and Lake Texoma, clearing up some misconceptions about that lake. "It's only a little bit salty," she said, noting that many Texas communities use groundwater that is actually more saline than Texoma. Bezanson also said using Texoma as a water supply would cost only one-tenth of what Marvin Nichols would cost.

However, Robert Johnson said conservation would not do it alone.

Bezanson also said Lake Wright Patman in Texarkana had 700,000 acres of feet in flood storage, which is land that has already been purchased by the federal government.

Sandy Greyson, a Council member, was concerned that Texarkana or other communities that would be involved in a lake system supply would not want to sell their water. "Texarkana has more than enough water from the lake," said Bezanson. "There is an economic incentive for them to find a good customer."

But not all Council members wanted to shoot down the allocation. "It's a high-stakes poker game with water in Texas," said Councilman Ed Oakley. "If we don't sit at the table, we don't get a say."

However, [Mayor] Miller said she wasn't sure that if Dallas didn't ante up the money, that they would be out of the game, considering a considerable amount of money is needed to fund the construction. She feels Dallas would be one of the first cities turned to for that amount of money.

The council members were impressed by a presentation from U.S. Rep. Max Sandlin, D-Texas, who opposes the reservoir. "We all recognize ... that Dallas has future water needs," said Sandlin. "The Marvin Nichols Reservoir is simply not presently a good alternative or viable alternative. Why commit $600,000 as a partial payment ... to a reservoir that's never going to be built anyway? It's $600,000 of your money that will be wasted. It's open-ended. It's a blank check you'll be writing."