Water for Texas - 2002 is the first State Water Plan adopted by the Texas Water Development Board, pursuant to Senate Bill 1, 75th Texas Legislature. "It identified actions to be used to meet local water needs during a drought of record and over the next 50 years" (TWDB, 12/31/2001, To the People of Texas):

Volume I, Section 5.1 - Key Finding: The population of Texas is expected to almost double in the next 50 years, from nearly 21 million in 2000 to about 40 million in 2050.

Volume I, Section 5.2 - Key Finding: Total projected demand for water is expected to increase 18 percent, from nearly 17 million acre-feet in 2000 to 20 million acre-feet in 2050.

Volume I, Section 5.3.2.2 - In Texas, 211 reservoirs have greater than 5,000 acre-feet of conservation storage capacity. These 211 represent a total reservoir conservation storage capacity of 41.5 million acre-feet.

Volume I, Figure 5-11 - Groundwater availability for aquifers of Texas under drought conditions as reported by Planning groups. - Total groundwater availability in 2050:13.1 million acre-feet per year.

Water for Texas admits that there is already 200 percent water storage capacity in the existing major reservoirs in Texas to meet the water demands for all of Texas in 2050, assuming the population of people doubles and under drought of record conditions (baseline is 1950's drought). That's current reservoir capacity sufficient to meet twice the projected demands of 2050. Adding the groundwater availability increases current water availability in 2050 to 54.5 million acre-feet, versus the projected need of 20 million acre-feet. All that needs to be done to make this water available for distribution and use are fully developed delivery systems.

So why are some people pushing and insisting there is a need for additional reservoirs to be developed, particularly in northeast Texas and in particular the Marvin Nichols I reservoir?

The Dallas Morning News, on January 18, 2004, quotes Jim Oliver, General Manager of the Tarrant County Water District, in regard to the City of Dallas rejection of funding $600,000 for the planning of Marvin Nichols I, "It's not going to slow it down a bit. We can absorb their 15% of the planning." The News also reports Mr. Oliver as saying - Even if Dallas decides not to help fund the reservoir, other water systems would build it; and Mr. Oliver said political opposition to the project wouldn't stop the project if backers decide to build it; and "If we want this reservoir built, it will get built."

Dallas Mayor Laura Miller, in a KLIF radio interview on January 8, 2004, gave the following as major points for the Dallas City Council voting not to spend $600,000 with the Sulphur River Basin Authority for a 15% stake in Marvin Nichols I:

1. Ten percent of water supplied by the City of Dallas is unaccounted for, probably due to leakage, which needs to be corrected.
2. Thirty percent of Dallas water is supplied to other communities at cost and that is a gift to be reconsidered.
3. Consumers in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area are among the highest per capita users of water in Texas, which calls for better conservation.
4. The farmers, ranchers, timber owners and loggers in Northeast Texas, their heritage and environment, should not be usurped.

The News article of January 18, refers to Mike Burke, administrator (now Executive Director) of the Sulphur River Basin Authority (SRBA), as leading the planning for the reservoir. On January 7, the News referred to the SRBA as the lead agency for building the reservoir.

According to the Texas Almanac 2002-2003, the Sulphur River Basin Authority was created in 1985, with a six member Board of Directors serving 6-year terms. The last Governor appointed board members, term expiration in parentheses, are Richard Goodman (2/1/05), Judy Lee (2/1/05), Mike Huddleston (2/1/03), Charles Lowry (2/1/03), Patsy McClain (2/1/01) and Robert Parker (2/1/01).

The SRBA Board meets on the third Tuesday of each month. Present on January 20, 2004 were Ms. Lee, Ms. McClain, Mr. Goodman, and Mr. Parker, at which time a quorum (4 0f 6) was declared and a meeting held. Of course, the Texas Constitution states at Article IV, Section 12(i), "For purposes of this section, the expiration of a term of office, constitutes a vacancy." In fact, on January 20, 2004, there were only two Board members present with unexpired terms, which does not constitute a quorum to have a meeting.

Your Water Supply, published by the Sierra Club, states "Since river authorities do not receive direct legislative appropriations, the selling of water or by-products of water constitutes the majority of the revenues."

The Dallas Morning News, on January 18, 2004 quotes Planners of Marvin Nichols I as saying the project would cost $1.7 Billion. That includes the $446.5 Million the Northeast Regional Water Plan projects as a cost just for the reservoir. That projection grants 35% of construction cost for Engineering and Fees (several engineers have said 10% would be generous) and an additional 15% of construction costs for Overhead and Profit to the developer, the SRBA. Only 25% of the total reservoir cost is allocated toward land cost. All of the land owners of the 62,000 acres put under water and of the 62,000 acres mitigated for flora and fauna loss of habitat (humans are not considered fauna), a total of 124,000 acres, would receive 10% proportionately less than the engineers and fee collectors who give up nothing, but only gain from the project.

The North Texas Municipal Water District and Tarrant Regional Water District have previously negotiated to purchase water from Oklahoma and had used the projected cost of Marvin Nichols I as a base line for negotiating pricing. Negotiations broke off when Oklahoma quoted their consultants for the cost of the reservoir at $5 Billion, and suggested pricing water from Oklahoma on that basis.

Why are some people pushing for Marvin Nichols I when Texas already has a 200% reservoir capacity for the projected needs of 2050? Once Marvin Nichols I is built and the pipeline to Lake Lavon completed, it's just a matter of time until additional reservoirs are built in Northeast Texas, feeding into that major pipeline. These additional reservoir sites have already been identified: George Parkhouse I at 30,000 acres, George Parkhouse II at 17,400 acres, both on the Sulphur River; Marvin Nichols II at 35,000 acres on White Oak Creek; and Big Pine (Lamar County), Pecan Bayou (Red River County), and Barkman and Liberty Hill (Bowie County), acreage unknown.

Once a reservoir gets built it has to be managed, indefinitely, and management fees are collected, and the management has to be monitored, and maintenance conducted. Marvin Nichols I & II, and George Parkhouse I & II are all in the Sulphur River Basin, subject to management and operation by the SRBA.

The proposal for Marvin Nichols I allocates 1 acre to be condemned for mitigation for each acre condemned for the lake site. However, the consensus of opinion on the actual ratio is more like 3 to 4 acres mitigated for each acre underwater. Adding the acreage of Marvin Nichols I & II and George Parkhouse I & II yields 145,000 acres underwater. 145,000 times 3.5 equals 508,000 additional acres for mitigation. That's a total of 650,000+ acres removed from human habitation -- land area greater than that of Red River County, or Cass County, or Bowie County.

When Cooper Lake was developed, more than 1 acre of land was mitigated for each acre underwater, including more than 50% of the shoreline. The mitigation land is primarily in Titus, Morris, Bowie, and Cass Counties and known as White Oak Creek Wildlife Management Area (25,700 acres) where humans can hunt, hike and view wildlife during the day, for a fee payable to Texas Parks and Wildlife.

Former Texas Senator [Bill] Ratliff is on record as suggesting the Timber loggers opposing the loss of timber land should apply to the United States Congress to delete the mitigation requirement, but environmentalists say that won't happen (Dallas Morning News, 9/16/02). Why won't the mitigation requirement get deleted? Because it is required by United Nations Treaties collectively called "Rewilding America."

Water is essential and water planning is needed, but farm, ranch, and timberland are also essential. Converting additional land for surface water, requiring disproportional mitigation (but not for humans) when reservoir capacity is already 200% of year 2050 needs for all of Texas, is foolish and poor land resource management.