20 September 2002. Following the August 21 meeting of Region D in Gilmer, there were newspaper articles in the Mount Vernon Optic-Herald, Country World andThe Paris News. They are reprinted below.

Recently there was a long front-page article in The Dallas Morning News about the near-completion and dedication of a new, state-of-the-art desalinization plant near Tampa Bay, Florida, which will come online in December 2002. It includes an 8-foot-diameter pipeline that stretches for fourteen miles. It cost $160 million, and it will provide the Tampa Bay area with up to 25 million gallons of water a day. FYI, one Florida golfcourse requires 1 million gallons of water a day to stay "green" and touristy, so this will supply 25 golfcourses with "beautification" watering. No further comment, or it could make me throw up in disgust. :-[

Compare that to the estimated $1.7 billion cost for Marvin Nichols. The Marvin Nichols Reservoir would be over 10 times as expensive to build as the Tampa Bay plant, and this reservoir could NEVER provide 25 million gallons of water a day, to DFW or anybody else, no matter what the lying politicians like King Rat wish us to believe. The State of Texas could build 10 such desalinization plants and a 140-mile pipeline for the cost of this 1 out-dated reservoir! Perhaps 35 years ago, Marvin Nichols was a dire necessity in terms of future water-planning, before desalinization technology was perfected; but today building another dam and lake and destroying even more of our natural countryside in the process is an idea based upon obsolete technology and thinking.

The City of Dallas, which is supposed to pay for most of the cost of Marvin Nichols, is currently in debt about $95 million. They are cutting 200 higher-paying supervisory jobs and reducing the hours of operation at public libraries, recreational centers and swimming pools. And they are considering a tax hike -- just to pay off the debt! And the State of Texas is anywhere from $5 to $10 billion in debt, depending upon whom you talk to. You can anticipate budget battles galore in the next session of the Texas Legislature.

I seriously doubt that our "leaders" will ever allow the squandering of all this Marvin Nichols money, when such cheaper and more efficient alternatives are available. So if King Rat, Comrade Chairman Muddlestonvic & the SeRBiA Politburo continue to try to tell us that desalinization is still an "untested technology", well, we can say B***S***! Economics rules in these shaky, shady times, even if Common Sense seems to have deserted so many of our "leaders" in recent years. The American public needs to clean house from top to bottom, from Washington, DC, to Talco, TX! We need some "ordinary people" running this country again, not all these ass-kissing, greedy, money-grabbing, unethical liars. (Don't get me started!)

The process of amending the Texas State Water Plan has begun, and there is no doubt in mind that Marvin Nichols Reservoir will be "de"-recommended. For more information about the crucial Region D Water Board meeting in Gilmer on September 18, CLICK HERE.

AGENDA REQUEST

The undersigned, members of the Region D Water Planning Group, do hereby
request, in accordance with Article IX, Section 3 of our Bylaws, that the
following item be placed on the Agenda for a Region D Water Planning Group
meeting to be held October 30, 2002:

CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE NORTHEAST TEXAS REGIONAL WATER PLAN TO DELETE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE MARVIN NICHOLS I SITE BE DEVELOPED BASED ON THE GROUNDS SET FORTH BELOW.

In accordance with this agenda request, we further request that all notice
requirements as set forth in Chapter 357 of the Regional Water Planning
Guidelines be done as soon as possible so that the required public hearing on
the proposed amendment may be held on October 9, 2002.

This request is being made based on new and unrelieved concerns regarding the
impact the proposed Marvin Nichols I site and the impact that mitigation
requirements accompanying the Reservoir would have on the Northeast Texas
economy, quality of life, and environment as well as the concern that the
proposed reservoir would fail to protect the agricultural and natural
resources of our regional water planning area as required by state law.
Other issues and concerns have been expressed, many of which are set forth in
the letter from 5 area legislators attached hereto, which requests the
removal of the Marvin Nichols I project as a proposed reservoir.

Based on these factors, we are making this agenda request so this issue may
be thoroughly reviewed by this Planning Group.

John Bradley
Richard E. LaTourneau
Billy G. Adams
William Justiss
Steve Dean
Gerald Brewer

Water Planners: Drop Marvin Nichols Lake

By John Henderson
The Paris News

Published 29 August 2002

The first recommendation made by members of the Northeast Texas
Regional Water Planning Group on what to do with a controversial
man-made lake requests that it be removed from the region's water plan.

The statement, made jointly by six members of the 23-member group
which makes recommendations on Region D's water resource plans,
states that there are "new and unresolved concerns" about Marvin
Nichols 1 Reservoir, regarding the lake and the displaced forestland that
must be mitigated to meet federal laws.

The request is based on those concerns, and the impact the lake and its
mitigation requirements "...would have on the Northeast Texas economy,
quality of life, and environment as well as the concern that the proposed
reservoir would fail to protect the agricultural and natural resources of our
regional water planning area as required by state law."

Before the lake can be removed from Region D's plan, the planning group
must formally propose its removal. They must then allow 30 days for
information to go public, followed by a public hearing and another 30 days
to allow public comments. From there, the proposal is submitted to the
Texas Water Development Board.

Region D chairman Tony Williams of Marshall asked group members to
submit proposals on Marvin Nichols before the group's next board
meeting, scheduled for Sept. 18 at Gilmer's civic center.

The statement is undersigned by Region D group members John Bradley,
Richard E. LaTourneau, Billy G. Adams, William "Bubba" Justiss, Steve Dean
and Gerald Brewer. It specifically asks that the removal "be done as soon
as possible so that the required public hearing on the proposed
amendment may be held on October 9."

TWDB has set up space on the World Wide Web to display comments by
Region D members regarding Marvin Nichols, and has posted the first
statement.

The Web address is:
www.twdb.state.tx.us/assistance/rwpg/misc/d-misc.htm

Virginia Towles, TWDB project manager, said the page went up late
Wednesday afternoon and contains the first statement in Microsoft Word
format. It and other statements will soon be made available in PDF format
as well, she said.

© 2000 The Paris News. All rights reserved.

WATER PLANNERS ASKING TO REMOVE PLANS FOR MARVIN NICHOLS

By Lynn Montgomery
Country World, 29 August 2002

Opponents of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir got what they were waiting for at the Aug. 21 Region D water planning meeting.

After receiving an Aug. 2 joint statement from U.S. Congressman Max Sandlin and State Representatives Barry Telford, Tom Ramsay, Bob Glaze and Mark Homer urging the removal of Marvin Nichols from the water plan, Tony Williams, chairman of the Region D Water Planning Group said, "Based upon their request, we need to pay attention and be courteous to the request, so I have asked the staff of the (Texas) Water Development Board (TWDB) what are the procedures for making a revision or an amendment to the water plan. As of this date, we do not have the exact ruling [from TWDB] but it is my understanding that we as a group are going to hve to come up with a 'specific language' for a proposed amendment. It has to be very specific."

The request was followed by applause and cheering from the crowd that filled the Upshur County Civic Center.

Steps for removal, according to Walt Sears, administrator for the Region D group, are: "specific language is needed on the proposed amendment, publishing the proposed amendment, give a 30-day notice for a public hearing, hold public hearing, 30-day period for public comment, ruling.

Sears explained the plan is two-phase: planning and implementation. "We are still in the planning stage," he said. "There is still reviewing and consideration in the plan in relation to Nichols. I am optimistic the board will be able to decide on the specific language needed for the amendment."

Seven Region D members issued a signed agenda request, at the Aug. 21 meeting, asking consideration to remove Marvin Nichols from the water plan. The seven members also requested all notice requirements be done as soon as possible so the required public hearing may be held Oct. 9.

Virginia Towles, TWDB project manager, is looking into posting board comment on the TWDB website.

"We may be able to have an October hearing and make a decision in late November," Williams said.

Members of the crowd exclaimed, "That's not quick enough." But, Williams quickly stated that the board was not going to do anything "unlawful" and that procedures would be followed. On the other hand, opponents do not need to be dancing in the river yet. There is a snag to this request. Just because Region D amends their plan, Marvin Nichols could still be built.

"Removing the reservoir from Region D does not dictate that it will be removed from (Region) C and the State Water Plan," said Towles.

Region C would have to amend their plan to remove Marvin Nichols as a water management strategy. If Region C decides to remove the reservoir, then they would have to submit that amendment to TWDB, who upon approval would amend the state water plan, according to Carla Daws, TWDB public information officer.

Proponents [sic: opponents?], like the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), are willing to do whatever it takes to remove the proposed reservoir. The federation began running radio advertisements on Aug. 19 with the message to "draw attention to Marvin Nichols and the state water plan as a whole", according to John Hannah, communications manager in the NWF Austin office. "If the Dallas/Fort Worth area would implement the types of conservation efforts that cities like San Antonio and El Paso [have done], then Marvin Nichols Reservoir would not be necessary."

The spots, which are running on roughly 15 to 20 stations in about eight or nine counties, ask residents to call Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff's office and voice their opinions about Marvin Nichols.

"There has not been an overwhelming response to the ad," said Ratliff, from his Mount Pleasant office on Aug. 22. "About as many that went on the bus trip to Dallas." (On July 22, about 60 Northeast Texas residents were bused to the Region C meeting in Grand Prairie.)

[COMMENT: King Rat is trying to make these 60 citizens look like a bunch of environmental extremists, who are the only ones opposing this reservoir. This is the same line of greedy propaganda that is being put forth by Comrade Chairman Muddlestonvic and the SeRBiA Politburo. King Rat has no concern for the citizens that he was elected to represent. He should be voted out of office. R.]

East Texas doesn't have enough political clout to beat the D/FW metroplex, according to Ratliff, and therefore must develop the reservoir to benefit East Texas, especially when the metroplex would pay 100 percent of all the cost to build the lake.

"We (East Texas) need to develop this reservoir and do it in a manner that is beneficial to us, or Dallas will develop the reservoir to benefit them," Ratliff explained. "Dallas/Fort Worth would pay 100 percent of all the cost to build the lake, but they would only receive 80 percent of the water. There is no use standing in front of the train," the [temporary] lieutenant-governor added.

Here is the article from the Mount Vernon paper, dated today, 29 August 2002. It was written by Lillie Bush-Reves. Regarding the headline, I personally seriously doubt that Marvin Nichols is still "on track". This project is dead! It is time for everybody to move on and think about something else for a change. R.

MARVIN NICHOLS PROJECT ON TRACK DESPITE LOCAL OBJECTIONS

Efforts to take the Marvin Nichols Reservoir out of the regional water plan are not expected to prevent the lake from being built.

"The Region D plan's language is written only supporting the building of the lake," stated Carla Daws, with the Texas Water Development Board. "Region D's removal of the lake from their plan does not conflict with Region C's plan to build the lake."

Terace Stewart, chairman of the Region C board and head of Dallas Water Utilities, concurred that there were no plans to remove Nichols lake or any of the eight possible water projects from their regional plan. "Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the report generated," noted Chairman Stewart. "The state asked us (Region C board) to provide a plan for the future water needs of our area, not definitely do them. The plan is a list of alternatives for the future. We have to study those to see if they are feasible, and we are nowhere close to having any of that (information)."

An emotional crowd of about 350 attended the monthly meeting of the Northeast Texas Regional Water Planning Group (Region D) board in Gilmer Wednesday, Aug. 21, and applauded as the board began a more than 60-day process to amend its water plan.

Tony Williams of Marshall, chairman of the Region D group, noted that amending the water plan was in response to requests from "several members of this group" and state and federal legislators to put the proposed Marvin Nichols Resevoir on hold. The Northeast Texas legislators said in their August 7 letter that they wanted more study done on the reservoir before it is approved by regional planners and the Texas Water Development Board.

The request was reiterated in a prepared statement read at the meeting by Bill Brannon, assistant to U.S. Congressman Max Sandlin. The statement from Congressman Sandlin of Marshall [and] Texas House Representatives Barry Telford of De Kalb, Bob Glaze of Gilmer, Tom Ramsay of Mount Vernon, and Mark Homer of Paris asked the board to delete the reservoir from the region's water plan for Northeast Texas.

Thirty individuals spoke against the lake, including about 10 from Franklin County, claiming it will take their homes and lands, increase property taxes, disrupt communities, move cemeteries, and damage the region's agriculture and timber industries.

Chairman Williams asked his fellow-planners to submit proposals for dealing with the lake to him within two weeks, to allow preparation and distribution of the various proposals to members of the board and the public before the group's next meeting. The next meeting of the board is set for 2 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 18 [at the Gilmer Civic Center].

At the meeting, the group will develop one or more proposals to be considered at a public hearing, which will include a public comment period. The group will then formally act on a proposal after the conclusion of the hearing and public comment period. "Because we recognize the strong feelings that many people have on this issue, all of us in the group would like to move quicker, but we are bound to follow Texas law, which defines certain procedures for amending the region's water plan," said Chairman Williams.

The Sulphur River Basin Authority recently approved a contract for initial engineering and environmental feasibility studies for the proposed $1.7 billion reservoir. The cost of the studies, $210,000, will cover the first year of planning, said SRBA administrator Mike Burke, with costs of about $1,050,000 projected for the next fiscal year.

The lake would inundate between 60,000 and 70,000 acres in the Sulphur River basin in Bowie, Franklin, Morris, Red River and Titus counties.

According to SRBA President Mike Huddleston, the Authority is obligated to consider the reservoir as an option because it is a part of the Texas water plan.

Meanwhile, a coalition of farmers, ranchers, timerland owners, loggers and environmental groups have carried their fight against the proposed lake to Dallas. They are joined by a number of Dallas citizens, as well as representatives from the Dallas Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Dallas County Green Party. The group, the Sulphur (River) Oversight Society (SOS), attended a Grand Prairie meeting of Regional Water Planning Group C. Oran Caudle of Texarkana an SOS spokesman, said the group's goal was to inform the two regional water planning boards of the negative impact of the lake on Northeast Texas.

Those opposing the lake contend the Dallas-Fort Worth area should focus on water conservation and other water sources before building a new lake. Chairman Stewart, in a later telephone interview, stated that the City of Dallas has one of the most aggressive water conservation programs in the state [PURE CRAP!], with fines up to $2,000 for those breaking code provisions.

Walt Sears, Jr., manager for the NET Municipal Water District, and Region D board, reported Tuesday that he had received one form of an amendment signed by three members of the board and expected at least two other versions to be submitted. The TxWDB will make the proposed amendments available on their webiste later beginning late this week, according to Virginia Towles, [State Water Development Board member and] liaision to Region D.

A link will be provided through http://www.mt-vernon.com/, the Optic-Herald homepage.