"If it's not a home run it's close to it," remarked Dr. James Presley from
Texarkana of an almost unanimous decision Wednesday by Region D Water Planners
to downgrade the status of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir from "proposed"
to "potential."

Presley was one of about 170 people from area counties and Dallas who crowded
into the Texas Agricultural Extension Service building in Mount Pleasant to
hear the planners decision on an amendment to the region's water plan that was
first proposed in September.

Texarkana Gazette Photo

In addition to changing the reservoir from "proposed" to "potential" the
amendment also calls for further study on a list of relevant topics including
mitigation effects, economic effects, effects on taxing entities, and
environmental effects.

"I just want to say thank you very much," Oran Caudle of Texarkana addressed
the board, voicing the sentiment of many of those in attendance. The majority
crowding into the standing-room-only opposed construction of the 72,000-acre
reservoir in the Sulphur River basin and saw the board's decision as a first
step in their goal of removing it entirely from the water plan. If built the
$1.7 billion project would be funded by Dallas/Fort Worth who would in turn
receive 80-percent of the water.

"We've made history in Texas," Caudle continued, "I don't think anybody else in
any other region has seen the grassroots support for something for a region
anywhere else in the State of Texas."

Fernando Albornoz of the National Wildlife Federation echoed Caudle's
observation. "The determination of this community to defend their natural
heritage and their property," he remarked, "It's a tribute to Senate Bill 1,
which was intended to involve the grassroots and have local control in the
decision making process." Senate Bill 1, passed in 1997 by the Texas
Legislature set up regional water planning boards across the state to develop
regional water plans.

"It's a tribute to the planning group that listens to these people," Albornoz
added.

The planning board received 3,708 letters in response to the proposed
amendment, including 16 written comments from organizations such as the
Forestry Association and state and local governmental institutions.

[COMMENT: Walt Sears informed me on the telephone a week after the meeting that he'd received another 1,000 public comments for a grand total of about 4,800 letters. R.]

"I think it's fair to represent that the overwhelming opinion that's in that
correspondence is in support of the amendment," reported Walt Sears, general
manager of the Northeast Texas Municipal Water District.

Of the 21 voting members in attendance at the Wednesday meeting, 20 voted for
the amendment and one abstained.

Gary Jackson of Smith County, the lone abstention, said he had been unable to
attend the previous two board meetings because of obligations out of town.

Mount Pleasant Daily Tribune Photo

"I'm not fully apprized of what's going on," he said, standing during the
public comment portion of the meeting. His remarks followed those of eight
people from the audience who addressed the board primarily to say thanks and
encourage them forward.

"Some comments that were made, it appears to me it seems to be the consensus
that whatever we did today has eliminated the prospect of a reservoir being
built at the Marvin Nichols site," he said. The board member cited other
reservoirs such as the Hoover Dam which also received opposition to their
initial construction.

"First off, we do have some water, but we don't have it in a good usable
fashion," he continued, "There won't be any generations if we don't have a
reasonable supply somewhere."

He said he sympathized with land owners who stood to lose land, but expressed
belief that the reservoir was necessary.

Vice-Chairman Mike Huddleston, acting as Chair in place of Tony Williams who
was unable to attend the meeting, brought the public comment portion to a close
after Jackson's pro-reservoir remarks set off a stir among the crowd who was
gathered mostly in opposition to the lake.

Huddleston, who also serves as president of the Sulphur River Basin Authority
has voiced similar support to the construction of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir
in the past, but thought the amendment passed on Wednesday was "a good move by
this planning committee."

He doesn't believe the distinction between the lake being "proposed"
or "potential" mean much ultimately, but thinks the other provisions in the
amendment are more important.

"The most valuable thing in this amendment is it calls for more studies and
that's what we've been doing," he said. Huddleston wants to see "the best
economic minds in the State of Texas" undertake the site studies.

"Let the chips fall where they may," he said. "They may come back and
say, 'Hey, you're going to destroy Northeast Texas,' and I can promise you Mike
Huddleston is going to be opposed to anything that is devastating to Northeast
Texas.

"But on the other hand," he continued, "If they say it is going to build the
future of Northeast Texas, then I'm going to be for it."

While the next step for Region D Planners is to proceed with site studies, the
reservoir's opposition have now set their sights on Dallas.

"We did carry the burden of proof, but now the burden of proof is on those who
want to build the reservoir," said Caudle. "We're going to see if they can do
as good a job in saying 'we need the reservoir' as all these people have said
that they didn't need the reservoir."

Organized trips to Region C water planning meetings are already in the works,
where Caudle and others plan to outline viable and more economic alternatives
to the lake. Topping the list of alternatives is a suggestion from a new Corps
of Engineers report which says up to 300,000 acre-feet of water is available by
operating the Cooper Lake and Wright Patman as a system of reservoirs.

"By blending that with Texoma water, they could get all the water they could
want," Caudle said.

Max Shumake, organizer of the Sulphur River Oversight Society (SOS)
remarked, "We have got a coalition together already with Dallas/Fort Worth
folks, and we're going to move right on into that area."

Mount Pleasant Daily Tribune Photo

He believes there is still quite a bit of work to do, including getting
reliable interpretations of laws relevant to the situation. But he also
believes the work will eventually pay off.

"It's a little more difficult to get to that many people, but it can be done,"
he said. "The people in Dallas are not as heartless as they would have us
believe - they're folks just like us.

"They're a little more crowded," he added, "But there's some good folks."

MOUNT PLEASANT

Water officials back off lake plan for area needs

Northeast Texas water planners made it official Wednesday that they are no
longer backing the possible construction of a large lake to serve the Dallas-
Fort Worth area's future water needs. The state-appointed Northeast Texas
regional water planning group isn't actively opposing the 65,000-acre Marvin
Nichols reservoir, which would be built by damming the Sulphur River about 150
miles northeast of Dallas. But the regional group moved the lake from
a "proposed" to a "potential" future water supply - a shift that leaves urban
north-central Texas water planners alone in favoring the $1.7 billion project.
Opponents say they will try to erode support for the reservoir in urban North
Central Texas. Water planners for the Dallas-Fort Worth area say they could
move forward on the project without the Northeast Texas group's approval, but
they say that they are far from making a decision.

Planning group lowers status of proposed reservoir

The proposed $1.7 billion Marvin Nichols Reservoir lost support in the area
where it would be built Wednesday when regional water planners voted to
downgrade the project's importance.

Meeting in Mount Pleasant, the Northeast Texas Water Planning Group voted
unanimously to change the status of the planned reservoir on the Sulphur River
from "recommended" or "proposed" to a "potential" water project.

"There's too much opposition to the lake and not enough studies have been done
to validate the need for this type of reservoir," said Richard LeTourneau, 54,
a Longview metal fabricater and planning group member. "We need to know more
about the economic and environmental impacts of such a large project."

The vote will not directly affect the plan, which has been recommended by north-
central water planners and is set by the Texas Water Development Board.

Those planners say the 62,000-acre reservoir and its 130-mile pipeline are
needed to ensure an adequate water supply for the Metroplex, where the
population is expected to double to 10 million by 2050.

Eighty percent of the water from the lake, one of the largest reservoir
projects in Texas history, would flow to North Texas, which has the greatest
need for additional water of any area in the state, water officials say.

But opposition to the lake from East Texas residents and businesses is steadily
growing.

The opponents contend that the reservoir, part of an $18 billion state water
plan, would flood forests, drive Texans from family lands farmed and ranched
for generations, harm the economy and destroy wildlife habitat.

Bill Ward, owner of a timber company that employs 250 people in Linden, called
Wednesday's vote "a real big first step" to getting the reservoir stopped.

"Our goal is to get the lake pulled off the state water plan," Ward said. "It's
bad economically for Northeast Texas and wrong to take people's land without a
good reason."

But removing the proposed reservoir from the state water plan would be
difficult and would require the approval of the state water development board,
said Carla Daws, spokeswoman for the board.

The state agency is responsible for developing the state water plan,
coordinating the efforts of 16 regional water planning groups and providing
financing for projects.

Erin Rogers, Lone Star Sierra Club outreach coordinator, said: "The question
will be whether state water officials subvert the democratic process and allow
North Texas to force the reservoir on East Texas against its will.

"This monstrous lake could easily be avoided if North Central Texas can
implement water conservation measures like those used in other areas in the
state."

MOUNT PLEASANT -- Water planners for Northeast Texas on Wednesday downgraded
their classification of one of two lake sites they had included in their 50-
year plan for a 19-county region, signaling what one observer foresees as a
potential "water war" between East Texans and the Dallas/Fort Worth region.

The near-unanimous decision by the Region D Regional Water Planning Group
doesn't mean the Dallas-based Region C won't go ahead with Marvin Nichols I
Reservoir. The plan Region C has submitted to the Texas Water Development Board
still proposes the 62,000-acre lake along the Sulphur River bordering Titus and
Red River counties. A 140-mile pipeline is planned to move the water to Dallas.

Oran Caudle of Texarkana said Wednesday's action strengthens lake opponents'
arguments against a project that acting Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff and others have
called inevitable. Caudle was among about 150 landowners, environmentalists and
timber industry members who crowded the Agriculture Extension Service building
in Mount Pleasant on Wednesday.

"This changes the whole atmosphere," Caudle said. "We've had the whole burden
of proof. The shoe is on the other foot - the very people who want Marvin
Nichols have got to prove they've got to have it. We now have a stick to
swing."

Region C leaders were quoted in September as saying Region D's action or
inaction regarding Marvin Nichols would have no effect on their plan to supply
the Metroplex, which they say will run out of water for projected growth well
before 2050. After Wednesday's vote, Region C representative Larry Patterson
was less strident.

"This demonstrates there is a need for more study," the Upper Trinity Regional
Water District engineer said. "I think the Region D representatives, as well as
Region C's, are committed to complete analysis."

He also agreed with Region C member Dale Sisseler of Fort Worth, who on Monday
urged his fellow Metroplex water planners to open a dialogue with the lake's
opponents.

"I think there are people talking, and that's good," Patterson said. "Because
we need to understand each other's position and get the facts out."

The regional water planning groups sprang from the 1997 state water bill that
created 16 regions along river basins throughout the state. Each group was
asked to map its water needs for industry, agriculture, recreation, drinking
and other uses through 2050.

Those plans are now in the hands of the Texas Water Development Board, which
will compile them into a master plan for the 78th Legislature to consider when
it convenes next month.

Wednesday's action in Mount Pleasant amends the Region D submission,
reclassifying Marvin Nichols from the highest-ranking "proposed site" down to
a "potential site."

That leaves the much smaller Prairie Creek Reservoir in western Gregg County as
the only proposed reservoir in Region D, but the Sabine River Authority has
declared Prairie Creek too expensive for its limited yield.

Meanwhile, Patterson said Marvin Nichols remains a proposed lake site in the
Region C plan.

"We're planning for the citizens' future for 50 years," he said. "So we're
diligently trying to do what's right for all the people - not just in our
region, this region too."

Rita Beving, representing the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, thanked the
Region D members but added the anti-lake voices " ... have got a long way to go
with Region C."

"From here on, it's time to bring the fight next door in the neighborhood to
Region C," Beving said after the meeting. "Frankly, they have no idea the
strength that's in the communities in East Texas or what's about to bear on
them."

She called Sisseler's comment in Region C Monday "a glimmer of hope."

"Because we're going to have a water war if Region C doesn't sit down with the
folks in East Texas and other groups that support them," she said, noting the
Region C plan includes $300,000 for conservation compared with the millions it
takes to build lakes. Dallas and Fort Worth have been criticized by lake
opponents for being the top two, respectively, in per capita water use in
Texas, double that of San Antonio, where water availability has been strained
for years.

"That's why it's truly unacceptable," Beving said.

Max Shumake of DeKalb said opponents of the lake are partly to blame for being
ignorant of the project Region D water planners began discussing in 1998.

"There have been some hard decisions here, and I realize we didn't come forward
and speak years ago when all the decisions were being made," he said. "Maybe
we'll pay more attention in the future to the things going on in the
government."

Gary Jackson, a Region D representative from Lindale, was the only one among 22
who did not support the amendment. He said after his abstention that he had
been unaware of arguments against the lake after missing two public hearings in
Gilmer, each attended by around 400 protesters.

"We do have some water, but we don't have it in a usable fashion," he said,
referring to the four-river basin Region D. "There are needs for water
everywhere."

Glenn Evans can be contacted at gevans@coxnews.com.