Dear Editor,

I am writing concerning the proposed Marvin Nichols I Reservoir. I just attended a meeting at Cuthand, Thursday, June 13, 2002. After reading a letter or article published last year in this paper about the "Lake", I was kind of excited. It stated that landowners would retain ownership right up to the water edge and that it would be an economic boom to our part of the country. I admit that I went to the meeting with a little skepticism; but after hearing the facts, which are backed up with documentation, I am convinced that we have been misled. I learned what mitigation areas mean. I saw how it would affect our tax base, meaning much higher taxes. I learned a lot of facts and figures that we were not told about. It was a very interesting and informative meeting. I also learned that it is not just a few people in the Cuthand area that it will affect, but from Texarkana to Bogata, from Naples to De Kalb, the whole Sulphur River Basin in our area. It will affect my family personally, and even if you do not own land in this area, the higher tax base will affect you.

I also learned that our lack of industry is not because of lack of water; it is because of lack of a good highway system in our areas. Our community is mostly agriculture and timber based. All these businesses, including the banking, feed, fertilizer, trucking and timber related [industries] will be greatly affected. Please take time to consider these facts. I urge the people affected directly or indirectly to go to one of these meetings and listen to the facts objectively and form your own opinions. I think if you do, whether you agree or not, at least you will understand a little better about what is taking place here. It changed my mind. There is still time to get this "Lake Proposition" defeated. There is a grassroots swell of people that oppose this and its numbers are growing. For more information contact: Pat McKelvey at 903-632-XXXX or Max Shumake, Rt. 1, Box 277A, De Kalb, Texas 75559 or call 903-667-XXXX or email MaxShumake@aol.com.

Thank you. Concerned Landowner & Red River County Citizen, Lindy Guest

[Note: I have omitted the last 4 digits of these telephone numbers for the sake of privacy. R.]

Dear Editor,

There is a lot of disinformation about the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir which will affect Bowie, Red River, Morris, Titus and Franklin counties. This disinformation is being put out by a small group of people who plan to get rich at the expense of the landowners whose land they are trying to grab, the people who will lose their jobs or other means of livelihood and the taxpayers who will have to foot the bill.

The first piece of disinformation is that the lake is a "done deal". The fact is that the lake must go through a lot of permitting from state and federal agencies before the first shovelful of dirt is turned.

The second is that "Dallas needs the water". Actually Dallas has enough water under its control to last at least another 50 years, and access to more water in existing lakes than ever could be supplied by Marvin Nichols Reservoir. Dallas wants the rights to our water so that in 50 to 100 years, when we need the water, they can sell it to us at their price. Incidentally, any city, county or other entity that does not use water from the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir in the first 10 years would lose their right to do so forever, and Dallas would have 100 percent of the water instead of the hoggish 80 percent they want not.

The third is that "if we (Northeast Texas which is Region D in the state water plan) don't build the lake, Dallas (Region C in the state water plan) will, simply because they have more clout in the state legislature than we do". While it is true Dallas has more clout than Northeast Texas, Dallas does not have more clout than the rest of the state legislators. These other legislators represent cities such as San Antonio, El Paso and Houston which use far less water per person than Dallas and have water problems of their own. If these other legislators let Dallas take over our water, against Northeast Texas residents' wishes, think what Dallas could do to the rest of the state. Obviously legislators from other cities that are solving their water problems by conservation and desalination plants are not going to look favorably at Dallas hogging our water. There are also many laws that would have to be changed before Dallas could take our water.

The fourth is that the lake will probably "bring industry and jobs to Northeast Texas". People wanting the lake say there is no assuarance industry and jobs will come to Northeast Texas if the lake is built, but they know that no jobs will come if we don't build the lake. The problem here is the fact that if the lake is built, there will be hundreds or thousands of people who will lose their jobs in the timber/logging industry. There will be thousands more who will lose their farms and ranches when drowned by the lake, or their land will be taken away from them to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat.

The fifth is that "property values will go up if the lake is built". A neighbor of mine had his property sold for $1,000 an acre. Earnest money had been paid. Then the buyer found out that the Marvin Nichols Reservoir might be built close to the property he was buying and demanded his money back. The property is now for sale for $500 an acre, but there are no takers. This proves that, even though it's not yet built, Marvin Nichols is actually causing land to lose its value.

The sixth is that "Northeast Texas will become economically prosperous because the lake will bring in millions of dollars to this area". Cooper Lake brought no such things to its surroundings. There is no reason to think Marvin Nichols would be any different.

The seventh is that "Northeast Texas would get the lake and its water for free". Nothing is free. Northeast Texas would lose 72,000 acres to the lake and from 163,000 to 500,000 acres for wildlife mitigation. All this land would be removed from the county tax rolls forever. This would cause the remaining land in each county to be valued higher so that the taxpayers who did not lose their land to the lake would have to pay the higher taxes to make up for the loss. Also, any city, county or whoever [that] wanted to use water from the lake would have to build their own conduits, pumping stations and treatment plants to bring the water to their areas and make it usable. Who would pay for all this? You guessed it: the taxpayers of Northeast Texas.

I'm going to quit listing the disinformation from the people pushing the lake and sum up my opinions by saying that Marvin Nichols Reservoir is not needed. There are cheaper alternatives.

Very Truly Yours, Don Gaines, Annona, Texas

IF DALLAS WATER PLANNERS HAVE THEIR WAY, ONE OF THE LAST BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD FORESTS WOULD BE LOST.

Los Angeles was a dusty desert town until the city fathers stole -- that is, discovered -- a reliable source of water in the Sierra Nevada, piped it 200 miles to the coast, and made the desert bloom. Dallas is no desert, but like pre-war L.A., the Metroplex's next half-century of growth is limited only by the amount of water available to feed its thirsty lawns and swimming pools. And like L.A., Dallas water planners believe they have found their future just over the eastern horizon: the Sulphur River in Northeast Texas.

Between the Cooper Lake dam near Commerce, about 40 miles east of Dallas, and Lake Wright Patman just south of Texarkana, the Sulphur River runs through some of the most sparsely populated areas east of Interstate 35, carrying with it an enormous amount of unallocated (that is, unclaimed by any user) water. The river also passes through one of the last large, truly wild stretches of bottomland hardwood forest in Texas, an area prized by sportsmen for generations. If Dallas planners have their way, this uncommon habitat in Titus, Morris and Red River counties will be at the bottom of a 72,000-acre lake, the Marvin Nichols Reservoir.

The reservoir, along with the 170 miles of pipeline required to get the water to Dallas, has a price tag of at least $1.7 billion. It's just one of many large, capital-intensive projects in the new State Water Plan, which contains proposals for dozens of new reservoirs and pipelines and will cost a minimum of $17 billion. But by virtue of its sheer size, cost -- and, critics say, wastefulness -- Marvin Nichols has become by far the most controversial.

Dallas, which already has among the highest per capital water-use rates in the state, has virtually no provision for conservation in its regional water plan. The National Wildlife Federation has estimated that if the Metroplex reduced its per person water use by 22 percent over the next 50 years, the reservoir would be unnecessary. (How feasible is that? San Antonio, for its part, lowered its per capita use by 30 percent in just 13 years.) Dallas planners instead are currently projecting an increase in per capita water use in the coming years.

What makes bottomland habitat unique, according to Tom Cloud of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is frequent flooding, which has the dual effect of making the land rich in nutrients -- which means abundant plant and animal life -- and unsuitable for farming, which limits human development. The mature hardwood forests of the Sulphur bottoms host a wide variety of Texas species, including barred owls, deer, wild turkeys and bald eagles. There have even been sighting of the Louisiana black bear in the area, according to Cloud. "Bottomlands are rapidly diminishing, studies show, because of reservoir development and [timber] clearing," Cloud says. When large tracts of high-quality land are taken for projects such as reservoirs, federal law requires that additional lands be set aside and managed to compensate for the loss of habitat. But so much bottomland has already been flooded or cleared in Northeast Texas, Cloud says, that finding suitable mitigation land will be a tall order. "The habitat has become very fragmented," he says.

Marvin Nichols also would inundate scores of family farms, mainly hog and cattle grazing operations, many of which have been held by the same families for generations. Local opposition to the plan has been growing steadily.

"We could see public hearings this summer with more than 1,000 folks there," predicts Dave Moldal of the National Wildlife Federation. "It would also flood some of the most important bottomland hardwood forests remaining in Texas. The alteration of stream flow would negatively impact bottomland forests downstream of the dam and reservoir as periodic floods are reduced in duration and frequency. This will degrade wetland habitats, and thus wildlife."

Farmers, sportsmen, environmentalists, and now even an area timber company have joined forces to oppose the project. Design and permitting for a project of this size can take more than a decade to complete. In the meantime, opponents plan to pressure local politicians, as well as the Texas Water Development Board, which has ultimate authority over the State Water Plan, to reject Marvin Nichols as too costly and too detrimental to the Sulphur and its inhabitants.

Speaking at a public hearing in Mount Pleasant last fall, Max Shumake, a local landholder and fifth-generation Texan, seemed to sum up the feeling in the bottoms: "I hate going to meetings, and I hate speaking in public," he said. "The only think I can think of that I might hate worse is knowing that I couldn't go to the Sulphur bottoms anymore."

The Dallas Morning News, By Staff Writer Manya A. Brachear, 4 July 2002

Throckmorton Pipeline Independence

Independence Day takes on a different meaning in the Texas town of Throckmorton this year. For the first time since building an emergency pipeline to a neighboring town's water supply two years ago residents are getting all their water from their own lake.

Six inches of rain in the last six weeks have filled Lake Throckmorton to 33 percent of capacity -- up from 6 percent in summer 2000, said Casey Chambers, director of public works for the community, 125 miles northwest of Fort Worth. The sudden gush has transformed parched golf courses, lawns and pastures into lush fields of green.

"It's the first time seeing green in a long time around here," Mr. Chambers said.

During an extensive drought in the mid-1990s, Lake Throckmorton came within 60 days of going dry. The town signed a contract to pump 180,000 gallons of water per day from Lake Graham. In 2000, more than 700 volunteers, many from outside the area, built a 15-mile-long pipeline to the town of Elbert, linking Throckmorton with the city of Graham's water supply.

The contract, which allows Throckmorton to draw all or part of its water from Lake Graham when Lake Throckmorton dips below 12 percent of capacity, runs until 2005. Until last December, the town drew half its water from each lake.

But on June 1, with Lake Throckmorton at 30 percent of capacity, it once again became the city's primary water supply. The reserve should be enough until December, even without additional rainfall, Mr. Chambers said.

For the town, that spells financial relief. With the price of treated water from Graham set at $2.75 per 1,000 gallons, the sudden autonomy could save the town at least $4,000 a month. Residents pay a minimum of $15 a month for 2,000 gallons, Mr. Chambers said, with households averaging 5,500 gallons monthly.

If the rain continues, Mayor Will Carroll said, the savings could be passed on to residents by Jan. 1. "We were upside down in our finances because we were spending more on expenses, and the cost of water wass more than we were receiving in revenue," Mr. Carroll said. "As soon as revenue recovers, we'll drop the rates back down."

That the rain might preclude July 4 fireworks and outdoor festivities doesn't seem to bother townspeople. Previous Fourths have been too dry for fireworks anyway. "We're dancing in the streets," said Helen Wright, secretary-treasurer of the Throckmorton Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture. "We went too long without rain. Let it pour. Let it pour."

The Dallas Morning News, Editorial Viewpoint, 7 July 2002
By Mary Ceverha, President, Trinity Commons Foundation

Ever try to sit on a three-legged stool with one of the legs missing? Didn't work very well, did it?

The current plans for improving the Trinity River basin in Dallas are, like that three-legged stool, based on three key components: flood control, transportation and recreation. Planned and executed together, they can move our area forward. Remove or drastically change any one of the elements, and you have the potential for delay and disaster.

While we read and hear a lot from the critics about the Trinity River, it is important to remember that the plans before us are a result of almost a decade of planning, citizen committees, public hearings, input from every part of the community, environmental assessments and transportation studies. What's more, they are a result of a voter-approved bond election in 1998, the only one involving the Trinity passed in recent times. We have had a lot of time to study and to debate.

There are well-meaning individuals and groups that may differ with some elements of the plans and would prefer to do things their way. There are others whose only goal is to do nothing. But we must not let the search for the "perfect" become the enemy of the "good". The time to act has come.

* Improved flood protection is needed immediately. If Dallas were to get hit with the same kind of flood that hit Houston last year, the loss of life and property damage would be unprecedented. The levees along the Trinity, constructed in the late 1920s and improved in the 1950s, are inadequate, putting the city at serious risk. If a flood like Houston's were to occur here, the medical complex along Harry Hines Boulevard would be flooded. So would the entire market center along Stemmons Freeway. At least 13 Dallas schools could be underwater. And the intersection of Interstates 30 and 35 would be out of service for weeks. All told, the flood damage could total $8 billion.

* Traffic congestion around the city's core is estimated to reach eight hours a day by 2010 unless highway improvements are made. The proposed Trinity Parkway provides that reliever route to the downtown "mixmaster" and will be key to our area's future economic vitality and to job growth in the city's southern sector. It also will play a huge role in helping to clean up the air pollution caused by snarled traffic. The environmental impact study on the reliever route is nearing completion, and a decision on its specific location should be made within a few months.

* The third leg of our Trinity "stool" is recreation. In addition to developing people-friendly resources like hike-and-bike trails and rest stops for the Great Trinity Forest, the plans call for a chain of lakes and parks inside the current levees -- a vast area in the heart of the city that has been virtually unused since the levees were built. Here is an area that is, on average, 2,000 feet across and about eight miles long and holds great potential for trails, sports fields, water features and other recreational amenities. It could become the real focal point of Dallas.

[Comment: Let's see. That same area could also be used for a large (at least) 4-square-mile lake in the heart of Downtown Dallas. Such a lake could provide quite a lot of commercial water to the Dallas Business District! R.]

Moving ahead doesn't mean ignoring further design ideas as plans translate to action. The design community is playing and will continue to play a vital role in the process, but the process must move forward with the urgency it deserves. The Dallas area has seen the construction of a major international airport, many cultural and sports facilities and a light-rail system. Meanwhile, we have continued to ignore our "front yard", the Trinity River basin, for which leaders have dreamed big dreams for generations.

Let's hope that this time the plans become reality before those dreams become our worst nightmare.