After six years of our concerted, often heated, opposition to the construction of new reservoirs in Northeast Texas, on 28 May 2007, the Texas House of Representatives approved Senate Bill 3 which includes designations for the Marvin Nichols and Fastrill Reservoirs. I watched these proceedings live on the Internet using RealPlayer, which is available free from realplayer.com if you have broadband connections. And, of course, I have read the bill itself and the up-down "fate" of its amendments, as well as the daily newspapers.

When Senate Bill 3 (SB3) came to the floor of the House, it included "designations" for the sites of the Marvin Nichols and Fastrill Reservoirs. It also included an amendment by Senator Kevin Eltife of Tyler that before Marvin Nichols was ever constructed, there should be an "objective study" of the reservoir's impact and its alternatives by "independent consultants" appointed by a committee consisting of 3 members from Region D (Paris-Texarkana region) and 3 members from Region C (Dallas-Fort Worth region). This six-member study-group proposed by Senator Eltife cannot be affiliated with any business or other interest, like Freese & Nichols of DFW, that might benefit financially from the Marvin Nichols Reservoir. Region C, but not Region D, recommended Marvin Nichols, and there is an on-going "dispute" between the regions about how one region can impose a water policy upon another region, because why are there "regions" in the first place? That is a question ultimately to be decided by a court, of course. Senator Eltife's amendment is appended below.

Over the past five years. Freese & Nichols have done quite a few studies about the impact of Marvin Nichols on Northeast Texas. The "Nichols" in the name Freese & Nichols refers to the founder of the company, Marvin Nichols, who was the first Chairman of the Texas Water Development Board, founded in the 1950s, when various reservoir sites were "designated" for future water supplies for the State of Texas. Marvin Nichols was a skilled water developer and reservoir planner in the 1950-1960s; and following his death in 1969, in recognition of his service to the water planners of the state, the Legislature voted to name the primary Sulphur River reservoir in honor of Marvin Nichols.

After SB3 was sent to the House, Representative Stephen Frost of Atlanta successfully amended SB3 to eliminate the referenced designations to the Marvin Nichols and Fastrill Reservoirs, as well as to make it impossible for a city like Dallas even to request a permit to construct a new reservoir if said city's water usage had not been brought down to below 200 gallons per person per day. The residents of Dallas currently consume 264 gallons of water per day, compared, for example, to the citizens of San Antonio who consume only 134 gallons of water per day. As amended, this bill was sent to the House-Senate Conference Committee.

During the discussion of this bill on the House floor, Stephen Frost raised a Point of Order about some of the general provisions in the water bill, possibly violating other state statutes and regulations. This was a valid Point of Order that would had to have been sustained by the Speaker of the House. Then the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Robert Puente of San Antonio, who introduced the Senate version into the House, knowing that Stephen's Point of Order would kill the bill, offered Stephen a behind-the-scenes "deal": if Stephen would withdraw his Point of Order, then Puente assured Stephen that Stephen would be appointed to the Conference Committee for the bill. Puente also told Stephen and put it in writing that any Conference Committee bill would not contain references to the Marvin Nichols or Fastrill Reservoirs. Stephen asked Puente how he could guarantee putting Stephen on the Conference Committee, that those on Conference Committees are appointed only by the Speaker of the House, in this case Tom Craddick, whose outrageous actions caused a veritable "insurrection" in the House this session, especially Sunday, 28 May 2007, but that is not pertinent herein. Most people who are reading this are well aware of what happened on Memorial Day Weekend 2007.

Puente and Stephen approached Craddick's podium, and Puente wrote down on a filing card the names of the five representatives that he wanted to appoint to the Conference Committee, including Stephen's name. Craddick told them that he saw "no problem" appointing those that Puente, a respected House member, wanted to be included on the Conference Committee. However, when the Conference Committee was later announced, Stephen's name was not included. Robert Puente had blatantly betrayed Stephen Frost! "I was stopped dead in my tracks!" Stephen later told the House. This perfidious betrayal will haunt Stephen until the day he dies!

And on Tuesday morning, 29 May 2007, I went to house.state.tx.us and sent Robert Puente the following short email message, and I have heard nothing from him with regards to it: "Dear Mr. Puente: You are not an 'honorable' man, as Dan Gattis stated. You are a liar and a deceiver, who stabbed Stephen Frost in the back. I curse your evil treachery! May you rot in Hell."

The Conference Committee restored references to Marvin Nichols and Fastrill Reservoirs, and they ditched Stephen's amendment about the 200-gallon water limit per person per day for any city wishing to construct a reservoir. This effectively allows Dallas to destroy whatever valuable land they choose, in order to build reservoirs, and at the same time not do a damn thing to lower their per capita consumption of water.

Eventually, the Conference Committee Report came up for a vote in the House on Monday afternoon, 28 May 2007. Robert Puente spoke eloquently for its approval, and then Stephen laid out the details of everything that Puente and Craddick had promised him in exchange for withdrawing his Point of Order. Stephen was thorough and persuasive and even produced the piece of paper which Puente had signed. Stephen was followed by Representative Dan Gattis of Georgetown, who also spoke in opposition to suspending the rules (at that late point in time) to allow an up-down vote on SB3. Dan Gattis delivered a most passionate speech, almost to the point of tears, about how if these House members couldn't trust one another, then whom could they trust? Puente had given his "word" to Stephen, and he should have kept his word. I was quite impressed with Dan Gattis.

Then Representative Robert Cook of Eagle Lake rose to speak. He also defended Stephen and said, "Representative Frost got royally screwed in this process. Stephen, welcome to the world of the water wars!" Gattis echoed these sentiments with further remarks, in which he stated, at least twice, that Chairman Puente was under tremendous pressure from "forces outside this chamber" that want this water bill. Of course. We have known that sinister fact from Day One.

During this discussion, the matter of Dallas' obtaining its future water supply from Toledo Bend Reservoir was mentioned. The people around Toledo Bend have plenty of water to sell to Dallas, more cheaply than building new reservoirs; and these people are "eager" to sell water to Dallas. But no mention of Toledo Bend as an alternative to Marvin Nichols or Fastrill is mentioned in SB3.

Finally, Representative Mark Homer of Paris stood to address the chamber. Homer told the House that after he first got elected in 2000 (a Democrat, to replace my brother, I might add), he informed the media that he was opposed to Marvin Nichols, and he mentioned that those who helped re-elect him in 2002 and 2004 were overwhelmingly against Marvin Nichols. His media remark obviously was a reference to the press conference at the Texarkana Bi-State Justice Building in the summer of 2002. CLICK HERE for more information. However, this year 2007 I have heard regular "gossip" about how Mark Homer is selling out to the local promoters of Marvin Nichols. Whilst watching Mark Homer, I was aware of that "disillusionment", as it were. And at a public forum in Mount Pleasant earlier this year, Mark Homer was quite "wishy-washy" concerning his continued opposition to Marvin Nichols. Everybody connected with our reservoir opposition group noticed his remarks at that public forum. Also, Mark Homer has been known not to meet with some of us who have been following this controversy from the very beginning; people from Paris and other places will travel to Austin to express their views to Mark Homer, but he has been too "busy" to meet with them.

Mark Homer's current demeanor and attitude imply that he has allied himself with the water developers led by Judy Lee, Ty Abston, Jerry Boatner, Ann Rushing, Tommy Spruill, Vatra Solomon and Walt Sears of the Northeast Texas Water Coalition, a recently organized, local lobbying group supporting Marvin Nichols because of the "positive economic impact" that it would have on this region. I shall not go into all those details, but that is bullshit, and Mark Homer knows it. Since those like Ty Abston, Judy Lee and Bill Ratliff gave generous campaign contributions to Mark Homer in 2006, apparently he now feels beholden to those financial interests. I guess that they wanted to "cover their tracks", as it were, because their own Republican candidate, Kirby Hollingsworth, was/is so ignorant and unsophisticated. Ratliff pointedly announced that he preferred Homer over "yokel" Kirby Hollingsworth. (Does holy-roller Kirby Hollingsworth actually "represent" the mainstream Republican? If so, God save us!)

In his House floor comments, Mark stated when he was first elected, most of his constituents were against Marvin Nichols. However, in the intervening years, he said, there have been a lot of people who've come forwards in support of Marvin Nichols, so that nowadays he is "torn" by this issue, since about 50 percent seem against and about 50 percent seem for Marvin Nichols. That is sheer crap, and Mark Homer knows it! There are VERY FEW PEOPLE around here, outside of some who would "financially benefit" from the reservoir (like Judy Lee's restaurant and Jerry Boatner's furniture store) who are "for" Marvin Nichols. I was disgusted that Mark Homer would take such a "neutral" and "non-voting" position on Marvin Nichols after all this time has passed. He should have stood up like a courageous man and voted "yes" or "no"! And before I started writing these thoughts a few days ago, I talked to some others who had also watched the Internet House live broadcast of the comments by Mark Homer, who is generally a liberal Democrat, although Bill Ratliff, Judy Lee, and others listed above are Republicans. Someone commented to me, "Who does Mark Homer think will vote for him next time? The Republicans?!"

Well, finally SB3 came up for a vote on the suspension of the rules, and clearly the vote was NOT to suspend the rules, effectively killing SB3. But the exact vote was never announced, and this dragged on for quite a while. Stephen had seemed to have won. But they had a "verification" of the voting, during which time they obviously pressured a lot of legislators to change their votes; and the final vote, after all was said and done, was to pass SB3. Stephen valiantly tried again to raise a Point of Order to stop the bill, but this one was not sustained by the Speaker. Mark Homer did not vote during the suspension process. He was "present, not voting" all three times. He finally voted against the bill itself, but where was he when Stephen and we who helped elect him needed him?

On Tuesday, 29 May 2007, the Mount Pleasant Daily Tribune quoted Vatra Solomon as follows: "This is a great day for Northeast Texas. We'll look back on it when that bill passed and all the work that is about to begin to make that reservoir a reality as a red-letter day for our part of the world and what it will mean, not just about water, but economic growth and how it will help us in those areas."

Vatra still doesn't get it, does she? Vatra (and I am sure all of her cohorts like Ratliff and Abston) seems to think that they can start building the reservoir tomorrow. Vatra's obviously forgotten about the Eltife amendment. Nobody is going to build anything until that independent, study-commission report is presented to the Legislature in January 2011. Nobody, not even smug Vatra Solomon, should count any chickens before they are hatched! Incidentally, in connection with the appointment of the Board of Directors of the Northeast Texas Water Coalition, Vatra engaged in some most unseemly and unethical behavior, which I won't go into here. Everyone who would need to know what Vatra did has been duly informed already. To Vatra (and Mark) I would say only, beware, for there is no detail too apparently insignificant or unimportant that escapes our attention. As they say, politics makes for strange bedfellows; and over the past six years we have attracted "concerned" eyes and ears everywhere, so never forget that. Every public move you make or word you utter is being noticed, remembered and reported to others. Beware!

And I want to remind everybody that Vatra Solomon used to be the chief assistant to former Senator Bill Ratliff of Mount Pleasant, who was instrumental in bringing this Marvin Nichols project to the forefront in the first place around 2000, and even before. Bill Ratliff was a planner and engineer in the construction of Lakes Monticello, Bob Sandlin and Cypress Springs. Bill Ratliff still has connections to Freese & Nichols. He has always been an unwavering, outspoken water developer. Certainly Bill Ratliff's advice is seriously considered by members of the Northeast Texas Water Coalition. Judy Lee, like Vatra, is a friend of Bill Ratliff. Senator Ratliff was instrumental in getting Judy Lee appointed to the Sulphur River Basin Authority, which eventually chose her as their chairwoman following the ignominious departure of Mike Huddleston, who offended just about everyone, for or against Marvin Nichols. According to recent local news reports, now even pathetic Mike Huddleston ("Muddleston") is starting to rue the day that he used to promote Marvin Nichols. It is such exquisite irony, you know?

These unscrupulous water hustlers, particularly Clarksville Mayor Ann Rushing, just can't seem to grasp the point after all this time that there will be NO shoreline development around the Marvin Nichols Reservoir. People can't point to older reservoirs like Lake Cypress Springs, for example, as what will happen around Marvin Nichols. These older reservoirs were built before there were ever any federal wildlife mitigation requirements. Cooper Lake is a prime example of the non-development of shoreland following the federal mitigation requirements. All of the land around Marvin Nichols, as around Cooper Lake, would be used for federal wildlife mitigation; and as such it would be removed from the tax bases of several counties, generating less tax revenue than before, a drain, not a benefit, to local economies.

Then on Wednesday, 30 May 2007, the Daily Tribune printed the following remarks by Eltife and Homer regarding the passage of the water bill.

<< Eltife and Homer agree Senate Bill 3, the omnibus state water bill, was one of the most important pieces of legislation to be passed. The bill includes an amendment by Eltife which forces members of Region D (Northeast Texas) and Region C (Dallas Metroplex) Regional Water Planning Groups to work together to study all water sources before the newly designated Marvin Nichols Reservoir is built.

The amendment also requires the Dallas Metroplex to foot the bill on construction and maintenance of the reservoir with access to no more than 80 percent of captured water.

"I believe that amendment gives us a seat at the table," said Eltife, who voted in favor of the bill. "I think the water bill is a major piece of legislation. Without our amendment in that water bill, we would not have a seat at the table and they would move forward with Marvin Nichols without us."

While Homer applauds Eltife's amendment, the representative voted against the legislation. "It still comes down to property rights for me," Homer said. "There are those who talk about the economic development potential and I hear them, and I don't dispute it, but it comes down to the property rights for me."

Homer said landowners living in the reservoir's footprint design will see property values plummet now that the land is a designated reservoir site. "That must be disclosed when the owners go to sell the property and who's going to want to buy property that will be flooded?" Homer questioned.

Still, he said the bill could have been worse. >>

The Dallas Morning News, 29 May 2007
By William McKenzie, Editorial Columnist

Texas is an urban state; someone alert the Legislature.

It was close, but the Texas House yesterday finally approved legislation that will let the state identify sites for 19 new lakes, strengthen conservation and determine how much water that rivers need for their ecosystems. After tense debate for more than an hour on the Legislature's last day, the House joined the Senate in taking the most serious step in water planning since the 1960s.

The bill was about more than water policy, however. It also was about whether Texas is coming to terms with being an urban state.

For a while this session, it looked as if that wasn't going to happen. A few days ago, Rep. Charlie Geren of Fort Worth asked his colleagues whether they knew who this Fastrill guy was that a lake in East Texas was named after. No one knew, so he joked that the state should change it to Lake Tuffy Hamilton.

The line drew laughter from the floor because everyone knew that Rep. Mike "Tuffy" Hamilton of East Texas had been fighting like mad to keep the lake from becoming part of the state's water plan. But Mr. Geren's humor also beautifully captured the dilemma that keeps playing out in Austin.

Here was a representative from a leading metropolitan area asking a rural legislator: Hey, would you go for this lake if we named it after you?

It's gotten down to that for the state's cities and suburbs, where the vast majority of Texans live. Lake Fastrill, for example, is one of two reservoirs the Dallas-Fort Worth area needs, but East Texas legislators fought until the last to kill it and the Marvin Nichols Reservoir.

Never mind that 9 million Texans will need water from those reservoirs. East Texas lawmakers like Mr. Hamilton and Rep. Stephen Frost didn't want them in their back yards.

The state got lucky this time. But if we don't watch it, we're going to hurt ourselves. Water wasn't the only issue caught up in the big city/rural Texas tug-of-war. So was transportation planning.

Before this year, that same division slowed down the state's school funding debate. What is pressing to many Texans, like sufficient funding for their schools, hasn't always been uppermost to leaders outside of Houston, D-FW, Austin and San Antonio.

This is all odd because Texas long ago moved from being a rural society. We are not only an urbanized state, but a suburbanized one.

What do the East Texans opposed to new lakes for Dallas-Fort Worth say to their children and grandchildren who've moved to Plano or Dallas? Are they saying their communities shouldn't have enough water? I doubt it, but clutching onto our days as a rural state limits our potential.

The urban-rural divide was at play in the speaker's race, too.

According to people I spoke with on the House floor, some rural legislators stood by House Speaker Tom Craddick of West Texas because rural Texas may not see one of its own become speaker again for a long time if the House elects a speaker from a big metropolitan area. They fear that once urban-suburban Texas takes over, they won't get the power back.

Perhaps. But it's healthy that Brian McCall of Plano and Fred Hill of Richardson tried to become speaker. The metro areas need to assert themselves, since their leaders represent most Texans.

Rural leaders can be a big part of this, too. What we need is leaders of vision, no matter where they come from.

Their vision, however, needs to start with a clear understanding of what's coming Texas' way. Former GOP Sen. Bill Ratliff of Mount Pleasant and former Democratic Rep. Paul Sadler of Henderson had that vision when they chaired Austin's education committee in the 1990s. They knew we needed to pay for a top-rate school system and hold schools accountable if Texas was going to prepare its kids for a global marketplace.

In the early 1970s, The Last Picture Show grabbed Texans' attention because it dramatized how rural Texas was being eclipsed. We need a similar reality in our politics.

It shouldn't take offering to name a lake after a rural legislator to get our politicians to understand the coming days.

The Dallas Morning News, 2 June 2007

Letter To The Editor By Russell Stevens, New Boston
"Texas's rural legislators are representing their constituents. Many people do not want large areas of land flooded. It is an environmental and practical issue. You [McKenzie] state that the water is for 9 million users. How much of this badly needed water will be used to water urban grass and golf courses and fill urban residential swimming pools?"

Letter To The Editor By Bob McIver, Garland
"I take it that the rural legislators are just a bunch of uneducated country bumpkins. You are using the same analogy that a lot of people used back in the '60s against anyone from Texas. I assume that you would like for all the rural legislators just to roll over and let the urban legislators get everything they want."

The Dallas Morning News, 7 June 2007

Letter To The Editor By Judy Parker, Belton
"I am a director of one of the underground water conservation districts in Groundwater Management Area 8, which includes Dallas-Fort Worth. Metropolitan areas need to learn that water is not an unlimited resource. Until they learn better conservation practices, they won't get a lot of sympathy from the rural areas that have to give up their water and their land to feed the urban waste. Better landscape practices and education on daily use are a start; in San Antonio, these have made a big difference in long-term water needs. How will Dallasites explain to their children why they pay exorbitant food prices because all produce now comes from overseas? To paraphrase, the farmer and the city slicker can be friends. It just takes both sides willing to sacrifice, not just the farmer."

The Tyler Morning Telegraph, 2 June 2007

Water, Water Everywhere:
Dallas-Fort Worth's Water Woes Should Not Be East Texans' Problem
By Steve Knight, Outdoors Editor

After four years the Texas Legislature has passed a state water bill. It was a battle. In the end it addresses some critical issues facing the state, and some that remain controversial in a David-versus-Goliath type battle.

One of the most important issues covered by the legislation is downstream flow, something people probably don't understand unless they are saltwater fishermen or are interested in wetlands for waterfowl and other wildlife. Fresh water, that used to flow freely down rivers prior to the construction of dams, is necessary for many saltwater species to survive and reproduce. Without it the salinity in the bay water becomes too high.

For wetlands, river floods are needed to recharge the bottoms from year to year. During the drought, which replicated a river system without mandatory flows, the bottoms stayed dry and migrating birds were forced to look elsewhere for a winter refuge.

It also addresses water quality, water conservation and makes sure water is set aside as much for livestock and wildlife as it is for lawns and golf courses.

The biggest battle on the bill might have been over designated lake sites for the future. Over the years several proposed lake sites have been trumped by conservation easements, plans for a federal wildlife refuge or some other issue that caused legislators to rush to attempt to call "dibs" on some locations around the state.

Citing landowner rights, East Texas legislators temporarily overcame the 600-pound gorilla that is Dallas-Fort Worth and were able to remove both the proposed 26,000-acre Fastrill and the 72,000-acre Marvin Nichols from the list. In the waning hours of the session, the two found themselves back into the bill.

Tyler Sen. Kevin Eltife said creating designated sites could reduce current landowners' property values or prevent them from selling their property even though the lake may never become a viable project.

There are other concerns as well, including the loss of potential reservoir sites for East Texas' needs, and the loss of East Texas bottoms and timberlands.

The latter is a growing concern every year. In recent years, International Paper has sold more than a million acres in East Texas. Temple-Inland is in the process of selling 600,000. Some will go into private hands and some will go to smaller timber companies. Both IP and Temple have been good land stewards in East Texas while conducting their core business. They have raised trees for harvest while protecting others for wildlife and clean water. To what degree that continues in the future under new landowners is uncertain.

The removal of the two lakes from the list is about as ceremonial as being on it. Being on it doesn't prevent the federal government from superseding state plans. Being taken off doesn't mean the lakes won't eventually be constructed. And an amendment by Eltife, which basically will require one region to prove it needs the water from another before building a lake, may slow a project, but probably not prevent it. Ever heard the saying "Lies, damn lies and statistics."

So here is a radical view to consider. Texas isn't running out of water. It has too many people.

According to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas leads the nation in the loss of open space. Once a rural state, Texas' farms, ranches and timbers lands are being replaced by homes and buildings, the roads needed to reach them and water required to quench the thirst of those who inhabit them.

And Dallas-Fort Worth seems determined on letting East Texans know we are country bumpkins standing in their way and their view of progress.

I grew up in Dallas at a time when the population was about 300,000, about a quarter of the city's size today. The city's million-plus population doesn't count the explosive growth of what were once known as bedroom communities and farm towns. And the U-Haul army continues to flood across the Red River.

When I was young, water use wasn't an issue. Today Dallas is a hog, requiring about three times as much water annually as a more arid, but equal-sized San Antonio.

I realize my theory is a chamber of commerce nightmare, but think about it. Other species can overpopulate their habitat, why can't humans? It is sad to think it is possible because man has the ability to reason. Doing so is different.

I compare the growth of big cities to an alcoholic who drinks because they have to maintain whatever it is that alcohol does for them. Cities have to continue to grow to continue to pay for the infrastructure required because of growth. Call it an urban perpetual motion machine.

Although they are in effect killing themselves, the big cities can't or won't regulate their growth. So the sprawl continues and when the natural resources close to home become overwhelmed, they reach out further and further, spending more money, which requires more growth to underwrite.

If it were just the construction of a 100,000 acres of reservoirs that would be one thing, but both Fastrill and Marvin Nichols are going to require much more acreage to be purchased for mitigation. In the case of Marvin Nichols some have put the estimate for mitigation as high as 650,000 acres.

Up until very recent times, Texas has always been a land of plenty. Plenty of oil and gas. Plenty of farm and ranch land. Abundant natural resources and open spaces. And more than enough money to get what we didn't have. Because of that, Texans never saw the need for conservation. But as the big cities grow, Texas is shrinking. Long ago the separation between Dallas and Fort Worth disappeared. The same is basically true for Austin and San Antonio. It is happening now from Houston to Dallas and Dallas to Oklahoma City.

When is enough enough?

If Dallas-Fort Worth doesn't reduce its need for water, just like the actions of an alcoholic the impact is going to be felt by others. In this case it is in East Texas. And quite honestly this issue isn't just about water. It is about the cities forcing their will on rural communities and treating them as second-class citizens. DFW honestly believes its addictions supersede the rights of rural landowners and those of smaller cities around the state. It is a shameful disrespect that us bumpkins just don't deserve and shouldn't accept.

Texarkana Gazette, 6 June 2007
By Jodi Sheridan

Marvin Nichols Reservoir Opponents Voice Concerns

MOUNT PLEASANT, Texas -- Representatives of various groups opposed to the Marvin Nichols Reservoir voiced their concerns to members of the Rotary Club here Tuesday. Rotary member Isabelle Smith, chairwoman of the Rotary program, said as "forward thinking people," it was important for the club to have information from both sides of the the issue. She said the Rotary Club would use all information to make an informed decision regarding their stance to the reservoir. Officials who spoke include Max Shumake, a long-time reservoir opponent and president of the Sulphur Oversight Society. He said thousands of people would be displaced and homes and other rights would be lost if Marvin Nichols is built.

Marvin Nichols is a plan by the state to address long-term water needs in the Dallas vicinity. It was designated as a unique site in legislation by the Texas Legislature in the recent session. Norman Johns, a water resource scientist with the National Wildlife Federation, was also on hand Tuesday. Johns spoke of the enormous cost of using two huge pipes to supply nearly 490,000 acre/feet of water per year to the Dallas metroplex, the billions of dollars needed to build it, the 72,000 acres the lake would flood and the destruction of a large amount of rare, bottomland hardwood forest.

"It would be the sixth largest reservoir in Texas," Johns told Rotary members. He said all the environmental negatives are present, including altered or impaired water flows and effects to the wildlife habitat. "There's a myriad of ecological functions that get changed," he said. Johns pointed out Marvin Nichols was a "water supply lake," meaning instead of being an attractive environmental setting, the levels would fluctuate and in extreme circumstances could even go dry.

There's also the mitigation: what the lake would cover would also be needed to replace what the lake took. Johns also spoke about conservation. He said cities like Houston, Austin, San Antonio and El Paso had made plans for it, while Dallas area cities were unprepared. "A lot of these cities are planning on conservation being a big part of their future," he said.

Johns said a projected goal of Dallas was to go from using 265 gallons per capita per day to 233. He said if they followed the task force on conservation, they could get to 152 gallons per capita per day. But he acknowledged conservation wasn't the only way. He said there was the possibility of wastewater reuse, water from Toledo Bend and other existing dams. Compared to Marvin Nichols, "conservation is cheaper," he said.

That's what International Paper would like to see the Dallas area do, in addition to tapping existing water resources. Amanda Black Keeney, the communications manager for the IP Texarkana Mill, told Rotary members how the reservoir threatened the mill's needed supply and water flow. IP boasts an enormous payroll and provides good-paying, much-needed industry jobs to the area, and Marvin Nichols would threaten that.

Citing an economic report, she said Northeast Texas faces an economic impact of between $72 million and $230 million. Add to that what the lake and ensuing required mitigation would devastate and it's not good for the area, she said. "Who benefits from Marvin Nichols?" Smith asked.

"Not us," Black-Keeney said. She said they just wanted a solution good for all of Texas, not just Dallas and not just Northeast Texas. She said they want to help Dallas and the metroplex find the water they need. "We're not anti-Dallas," she said.

Mount Pleasant Daily Tribune, 6 June 2007
Letter To The Editor By Billy Wayne Hallmon, Dallas

Dear Editor: Dallas justifies its land grab for new East Texas reservoirs by claiming there will be "13 million residents" in another 50 years. During the 20th Century, Dallas grew rapidly because of a native birth rate and migration from northern states. Contrarily, in the 21st Century, neither of these will grow Dallas. Birth rates of US citizens have become negative. With northern states getting warmer and Texas hotter, Rust Belt migration will likely reverse. Any "13 million residents" will be coming up from Mexico, Honduras, etc., and most will enter illegally. This trend has already altered Dallas' demographics and the proposed NAFTA Highway will further exacerbate the problem. The Dallas Chamber [of Commerce] claims that new reservoirs are necessary for growth. This circuitous strategy encourages more population that wants more water. Meanwhile, East Texans will lose their land, heritage, and economic opportunities; and they, as well as all Americans, will lose their forests and wildlife, so that Dallas can absorb a runaway Third World birth rate.

ARTICLE 4. UNIQUE RESERVOIR SITES AND SITES OF UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL VALUE
SECTION 4.01. Section 16.051, Water Code, is amended by adding Subsection (g-1) to read as follows:
(g-1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, a site is considered to be a designated site of unique value for the construction of a reservoir if the site is recommended for designation in the 2007 state water plan adopted by the board and in effect on May 1, 2007. The designation of a unique reservoir site under this subsection terminates on September 1, 2015, unless there is an affirmative vote by a proposed project sponsor to make expenditures necessary in order to construct or file applications for permits required in connection with the construction of the reservoir under federal or state law.
SECTION 4.02. DESIGNATION OF SITES OF UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL VALUE. The legislature, as authorized by Subsection (f), Section 16.051, Water Code, designates those river or stream segment sites recommended in the 2007 state water plan as being of unique ecological value.
SECTION 4.03. RESTRICTION ON ELIGIBILITY TO HOLD WATER RIGHTS; LIABILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS.
(a) This section applies only to the proposed Marvin Nichols and Lake Fastrill reservoirs.
(b) The right to appropriate at least 20 percent of the quantity of water that is authorized to be appropriated from each proposed reservoir must be held by one or more entities located in the regional water planning area in which the reservoir is to be located.
(c) If one or more entities located outside the regional water planning area in which a proposed reservoir is to be located are to hold the right to appropriate a majority of the quantity of water that is authorized to be appropriated from the reservoir, that entity or those entities must pay all of the costs of constructing, operating, and maintaining the reservoir until such time as one or more entities located in the regional water planning area in which the reservoir is to be located begins diverting water. At such time, the entity or entities making a diversion shall pay a pro-rata share of the cost of operating and maintaining the reservoir.
SECTION 4.04. STUDY COMMISSION ON REGION C WATER SUPPLY.
(a) The Study Commission on Region C Water Supply is established. The study commission consists of six members as follows:
(1) three members appointed by the Region C Regional Water Planning Group; and
(2) three members appointed by the Region D Regional Water Planning Group.
(b) A member of the study commission may be, but is not required to be, a voting member of the regional water planning group that appointed the member.
(c) The members of the study commission shall select a presiding officer from among the members.
(d) Members of the study commission are not entitled to compensation for service on the study commission but may be reimbursed for travel expenses incurred while conducting the business of the study commission, as provided for in the General Appropriations Act.
(e) The study commission shall:
(1) review the water supply alternatives available to the Region C Regional Water Planning Area, including obtaining additional water supply from Wright Patman Lake, Toledo Bend Reservoir, Lake Texoma, Lake O' the Pines, other existing and proposed reservoirs, and groundwater;
(2) in connection with the review under Subdivision (1) of this subsection, analyze the socioeconomic effect on the area where the water supply is located that would result from the use of the water to meet the water needs of the Region C Regional Water Planning Area, including:
(A) the effects on landowners, agricultural and natural resources, businesses, industries, and taxing entities of different water management strategies; and
(B) in connection with the use by the Region C Regional Water Planning Area of water from Wright Patman Lake, the effect on water availability in that lake and the effect on industries relying on that water availability;
(3) determine whether water demand in the Region C Regional Water Planning Area may be reduced through additional conservation and reuse measures so as to postpone the need for additional water supplies;
(4) evaluate measures that would need to be taken to comply with the mitigation requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers in connection with any proposed new reservoirs, including identifying potential mitigation sites;
(5) consider whether the mitigation burden described by Subdivision (4) of this subsection may be shared by the Regions C and D Regional Water Planning Areas in proportion to the allocation to each region of water in any proposed reservoir;
(6) review innovative methods of compensation to affected property owners, including royalties for water stored on acquired properties and annual payments to landowners for properties acquired for the construction of a reservoir to satisfy future water management strategies;
(7) evaluate the minimum number of surface acres required for the construction of proposed reservoirs in order to develop adequate water supply; and
(8) identify the locations of proposed reservoir sites and proposed mitigation sites, as applicable, as selected in accordance with existing state and federal law, in the Regions C and D Regional Water Planning Areas using satellite imagery with sufficient resolution to permit land ownership to be determined.
(f) The study commission may not be assisted by any person that is a party to or is employed by a party to a contract to perform engineering work with respect to site selection, permitting, design, or construction of the proposed Marvin Nichols reservoir.
(g) The Texas Water Development Board, on request of the study commission, may provide staff support or other assistance necessary to enable the study commission to carry out its duties. The Texas Water Development Board shall provide funding for the study commission, including funding of any studies conducted by the study commission, from the regional planning budget of the board.
(h) Not later than December 1, 2010, the study commission shall deliver a report to the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house of representatives that includes:
(1) any studies completed by the study commission;
(2) any legislation proposed by the study commission;
(3) a recommendation as to whether Marvin Nichols should remain a designated reservoir site; and
(4) other findings and recommendations of the study commission.
(i) The study commission is abolished and this section expires December 31, 2011.
SECTION 4.05. EFFECTIVE DATE. This article takes effect immediately if this Act receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this article takes effect September 1, 2007.