GILMER, Texas -- Urban North Texas' future water supply plans took a poke in the eye Wednesday as northeast Texas' regional water planners started backing off their support for a new reservoir for Dallas-area utilities.

In front of 200 people at Gilmer's civic center, the region's water planning group took the first steps toward saying it isn't willing to endorse the Marvin Nichols dam and lake that Dallas and other cities want to built on the Sulphur River.

The group, a state-appointed committee of government, industry and community representatives, began a process that could lead to a final vote in November. Even then, state water officials say, the group's change of mind wouldn't cancel the project, because they say Dallas-Fort Worth area utilities could seek their own permits and build it themselves. Environmental groups, however, are assembling legal opinions disputing that.

The opponents to the reservoir, "I admit have raised some issues that struck home with me," said Tony Williams, retired Marshall city manager. "We just want to make sure we have looked at everything before anyone decides to more forward with the project."

Opponents of Marvin Nichols, a $1.7 billion project that water users in the Dallas-Fort Worth area would pay for, were jubilant. They object to the loss of farms, ranches, timberland and old family homes to the 72,000-acre reservoir, saying urban North Texas should first curb its high per-person water use.

"I believe that ultimately, the [Texas] Water Development Board will not ignore the thousands of people who oppose this," said planning group member Richard LeTourneau of Longview.

Max Shumake, who owns land along the Sulphur River, said, "We're pleased with what has happened, but there is still a lot to do."

Vernon Rowe, a planning group member from Camp County, said he, too, wants more study before the lake plans go forward. But until those studies are done, "I don't think that we should be pre-supposing outcomes."

The northeast Texas planning group is one of 16 appointed under the state's 1997 water planning bill. Each region's group has written a plan for meeting water needs over the next 50 years. Planners for northeast Texas say their region doesn't need Marvin Nichols as a water supply because theirs is among the state's wettest areas.

But North Texas planners say their region badly needs new supplies to accommodate millions of newcomers to the semi-arid prairie over the next half-centyry. If Marvin Nichols anchors that new supply, its water would come to urban utilities through pipes no earlier than 2030.

[Comment: Why are all these "millions of newcomers" moving to Texas in the first place, when there are resource problems of this nature? They should stay in their homestates, and leave Texas alone! And if this proposed reservoir won't even be up and running before 2030, where are these "millions of newcomers" going to get their water in the meantime? It took less than 4 years for that new desalinization plant in Florida to get from the approval to the completion stage, not 28 years. This reservoir is the most illogical and absurd idea ever proposed, given the state of our current water technology. Marvin Nichols is an obsolete dream-plan from an old-fashioned bygone era. R.]

The northeast Texas group decided on a voice vote to consider amending its regional plan by changing Marvin Nichols from a "recommended" to a "potential" water supply project. Because of procedural and public-notice requirements, the amendment won't become final until another vote in November.

Many local governments still back the project, but some opponents warned that they will pay a political price for doing so. "I am a qualified voter, and I vote my convictions," said Pearis C. Abernathy, 81, a lifelong Red River County resident. "And I will vote against any politician who votes for this lake."

Opponents to the now "proposed" Marvin Nichols Reservoir are optimistic that it may soon be only "potential".

Members of the Northeast Texas Water Planning Group decided in a 22 to 1 vote yesterday to consider an amendment to the regional water plan adopted in 2001 that will change the controversial reservoir's status from "proposed" to "potential". For one small word, it makes a big difference in how the project is perceived by the water planners.

"There are a number of reservoirs in the state that are being studied and looked at for some time -- they are 'potential'," explained Tony Williams, Chair of the Northeast Texas Water Planning Group. "For us then, to reconsider (Marvin Nichols) as a 'proposed' reservoir is going to require some very specific detailed studies concerning mitigation, economic effects on the local communities, effects on wildlife, effects on agriculture, effects on timber -- those sorts of things." Studies which will take years to complete.

[COMMENT: After a while, don't you just sick and tired of hearing all this BS from people like Tony Williams, King Rat, Muddlestonvic, et al? It is enough to make one sick at one's stomach. As that speaker at the Gilmer meeting this week stated, King Rat better not show up prowling around the Sulphur River Bottom. R.]

The water planning group's decision to consider retracting the reservoir's current grading of "proposed and recommended" is largely the result of an August 2 joint statement issued by five state leaders from East Texas. U.S. Congressman Max Sandlin and State Representatives Bob Glaze, Mark Homer, Tom Ramsay and Barry Telford requested that the reservoir's recommendation by Northeast Texas water planners be withdrawn until the concerns of those who would be impacted by its construction are fully addressed.

Since the lake, which would inundate around 70,000 acres of land in southern Red River and northern Titus counties, was included in the 2001 water plan, landowners, environmentalists, and people in the timber industry have joined forces to fight it. Meetings once held in the Titus County Extension Office building were moved to the Gilmer Civic Center two months ago to accommodate the mounting ranks of the opposition. Tuesday's [sic: Wednesday's] meeting was attended by more than 200, most who don't want to see the reservoir built.

While rolling back the project's designation would be a victory to those against it, many are concerned that it won't be enough to stop the reservoir from being built if Dallas, who would pay the $1.7 billion price tag for its construction and receive about 80 percent of the water in return, wants it built.

According to a recent Associated Press story, Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant, said, "In my opinion, the reservoir will be built."

Others are not so certain. Gov. Rick Perry told the Dallas Morning News for a story in their Monday edition, "It appears to me that if Dallas solely relies upon the building of Marvin Nichols, they could miscalculate. We know how long it takes to build a reservoir."

Texas Agricultural Commissioner Susan Combs also voiced doubt on the issue. In a September 12 letter to Kevin Ward, Executive Administrator of the Texas Water Development Board, Combs expressed concern of the potentially devastating impact the reservoir could have on the Northeast Texas timber economy. "The Texas Forest Service estimates that the loss of timberland would have a negative economic impact on the region of between $87 million and $275 million and include a loss of between 417 and 1,334 local jobs."

Williams believes that Region C planners will take Region D's concerns seriously as answers to the many questions remaining about the impact of the proposed lake are sorted out. [sic] He was careful to point out, however, that "we don't issue permits ... all we do is recommend. We don't have the power to say you can build this reservoir or you can't build this reservoir," he said. "We just recommend what we think is a reasonable plan."

He has faith that Region C will listen to the recommendations of their eastern neighbors. "I don't think it's just idle talk at all. I think what we've done has significance," Williams said. "We work with other regions -- these rivers don't stop at the border. If we don't work together in trying to put forward a plan, it can't be effective."

Richard LeTourneau, who represents the environmental interest on the board for Harrison County and co-authored the amendment approved for the vote, shared Williams' belief that what the group is doing is important. "I think it will have a large political impact on the governmental entities, especially the Water Development Board," he said. "The fight now goes to Region C, but I believe eventually the Texas Water Development Board will not ignore these thousands of people in East Texas."

LeTourneau opposes construction of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir and believes "that the people of East Texas will prevail".

Others disagree. Many believe that not only is the reservoir inevitable, but it would be a boone to the region's economy. The fact that Dallas is willing to foot the dam and reservoir's construction costs, they argue, makes it a bargain East Texas can't afford to bypass. Not only would the reservoir have the potential for generating tourist dollars, they say, but the water received, while only 20 percent of the whole, would still be an exceptionally large amount.

Williams voiced neither support nor opposition to the reservoir, but he did say that the state of Texas "cannot allow East Texas to thumb its nose at the rest of th state". This area, the planning group chair noted, is blessed with a lot of rainfall. "There are many areas of this state that you can build all you want to, but there is going to be more evaporation take place than there's going to be the ability to collect water," he continued. "That's why there's reservoirs in East Texas and there's not in West Texas."

But the fact that it's not the state's western desert, but a metroplex in north-central Texas whose per-capita water consumption is currently the highest in the state has left many East Texans feeling less than generous. The Marvin Nichols reservoir may not be removed entirely from the state water plan if the amendment passes when the planning group reconvenes in Gilmer on October 30, but opponents hope that the move will at least let Region C know that if they want the lake, they're going to have to fight for it.

[COMMENT: A photo accompanying this article shows a man with a sign reading "Don't let Dallas turn the WHINE into WATER." R.]

GILMER, Texas -- Members of the Northeast Texas Regional Water Planning Group decided Wednesday to approve the language of a proposed amendment that calls for suspension of the proposed Marvin Nichols reservoir and dam. The action was taken during a meeting held in Gilmer and hundreds of Northeast Texas residents seemd pleased.

"I'm glad that this board is starting the process to get this lake off the plan," said Robert Lewis of Bogata. "I've been opposed to it from the very beginning. They want to come down and tell me what they can give me for my land? Well, my land is not for sale, it was never for sale, and it will never be for sale."

After numerous requests from loggers, farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, and land owners like Lewis, and even a request from local elected officials to back off on Marvin Nichols, members of the NETRWPG were persuaded to revisit the issue and put the item on their next agenda.

"Item 3 is the basic reason for our meeting today," said Tony Williams, committee chairman. "At our last meeting, we decided that we would consider the language of a proposed amendment ... especially out of courtesy and respect of our elected representatives."

District 1 Congressman Max Sandlin, along with four other Texas state representatives, sent a letter to NETRWPG, asking them to hold off on pursuing the Marvin Nichols project until further study could reveal concrete information about the substantial impacts the lake would have on the economy and the land of the Northeast Texas region.

"I'm really glad that the committee has taken this step, but I don't think it's over yet. It's really just the beginning," said Max Shumake, a De Kalb resident, and one of the leading opponents of the lake. "I also don't think we would have gotten this far, if it wasn't for the letter from Sandlin and the other representatives either," Shumake said. "But now that this has happened, we need to search for real alternatives (for water) ... we're not anti-Dallas, or anti-Fort Worth, we just want them to look for a better way of getting the water they need without genociding the land."

In a unanimous vote [not correct, according to the above article. R.], members of the NETRWPG decided to accept a proposed amendment, authored by committee member Richard LeTourneau, that would change Marvin Nichols I from a proposed reservoir site to a potential reservoir site. The amendment also calls for further study into other possible reservoir sites, and specific studies that would address site-specific topics such as the effects of mitigation on the economy, on the local property owners, on taxing entities, on future water needs of potential consumers, on the envirnoment, on agricultural and natural resoures, and the effects on alternative viable water management strategies.

As mandated by Texas law, a public hearing to receive public input regarding the proposed amendment is set for 2 p.m., Oct. 30, with a public comment session to follow the public hearing.

"Though this is good news, it doesn't really mean it is deleted from the plan," said Oran Caudle, an enviromental consultant from Texarkana. "All they've done is remove the green light on the project."