"Mitigation" was the key word at Tuesday's mneeting of the Sulphur River Basin Authority (SRBA).

Of the many contentious issues surrounding the proposed construction of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir in Northeast Texas, land mitigation has taken on a special role, largely because little is known of how it will affect Northeast Texans. "Mitigation" means literally "to lessen the effect of". When used with reference to the proposed reservoir, the word refers to the land that will be taken out of use in other areas to make up for the land that will be used for the reservoir itself.

According to Janice Bezanson, Executive Director of the Texas Committee on Natural Resources, the land mitigated must be of like kind. "You can't use upland to mitigate for bottomland," she said. "It has to be forest of a similar quality."

Right now, no one knows how much land that means, or where that land will be located.

During the meeting prior to Tuesday's meeting of the SRBA, Bill Ward with Ward Timber Company in Linden submitted a list of questions regarding mitigation. He asked, among other things, "Who will determine the number of acres needed for mitigation land?" and "Who will be paying for it?"

Before attempting to answer, Michael Burke, SRBA Administrator, explained, "There are a lot of questions that we don't know the answers to yet because we've got to get through the planning process first." Burke said that following the five-year permitting stage, several entities including the SRBA, the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Parks and Wildlife Department, and the TNRCC will go through a long process of field work and analysis to come up with an agreement on a process for mitigation. They will decide how much land is needed, and how it should be set aside. More permitting will follow before actual negotiations with land owners begin. The SRBA has the authority of eminent domain, Burke said, but would condemn land only as a last resort.

"As far as 'Can it be tied up in court?', both the mitigation and the condemnation procedures can be tied up if the challenge is directed toward whether the process was followed correctly," Burke noted. "It cannot be tied up in court just because of the process itself."

Burke said that the SRBA would pay for the mitigation land out of the proceeds of future water sales. The Authority would also manage the land, but more than likely they would "negotiate with entities such as the Corps of Engineers or the Texas Department of Wildlife to manage the mitigation." Burke stated that the goal of the SRBA is to mitigate all land outside the boundaries of the Sulphur River Basin.

Ward expressed concern that the Authority would be powerless to enforce this final point, citing a goal stated in the Clean Water Act that if mitigation land onsite of the reservoir is not practical, offsite mitigation should be found somewhere within the same watershed. "So even though it may be your goal to keep it outside our watershed, it says 'to the extent possible' and you have condemnation powers," Ward said, and suggested the Authority put more effort into considering the other alternatives Dallas has for getting water.

Bob Murray, an Engineer for the Sulphur River Basin Authority, responded that "these are goal words, they're not set in concrete. The goal of these agencies is that you try to mitigate into the areas around it. But routinely there have been mitigation banks and all sorts of things that are not done in the specific area."

Huddleston assured Ward that the SRBA would not let the citizens of Northeast Texas suffer severe economic blows. "If it came down to the point of where it was going to be a total economic disaster to Northeast Texas and the Sulphur River Basin, this board would not sell the citizens of Northeast Texas out."

Following [the] adjournment of yet another friction-filled meeting of the SRBA, Mike Huddleston, Authority President, announced a procedural change for future meetings. Discussion of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir will only take place when agenda items call for it.

"I find it very difficult to let the Marvin Nichols [sic], every meeting, be geared by coming in and setting the agenda for us," Huddleston said. He assured those present that they would be given the opportunity to askquestions and make comments as studies on the reservoir progress and engineers' reports start becoming available.

Although Huddleston was not available for comment on the decision, Michael Burke, SRBA Administrator, said, "I don't think it will change any future meetings. I think what his intention is, is to allow people to make a comment ... on that agenda item, if it is on the agenda."

In previous meetings, Huddleston had opened the floor to public comment following discussion of all action items on the agenda. Comments typically focused on issues concerning the proposed reservoir, even if the agenda did not directly address it.

The proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir is a $1.7 billion project which would be mostly funded by the Dallas area in Region C, but located in Northeast Texas' Region D. In return for their investment, Dallas would also be entitled to 80 percent of the water contained by the reservoir.

Controversy surrounding the project includes environmental, land rights and mitigation issues.