Marvin Nichols goes into more troubled waters

Image
Subhead

Petition opposed to lake garners over 1,000 signatures

Body

A petition opposing the regional Marvin Nichols Reservoir has gathered over 1,000 signatures, a milestone in a years-long fight between two water regions and two ways of life.

“The proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir would rob Northeast Texas of land, valuable jobs, and precious water, devastating the region’s economic vitality, heritage farmlands, and natural resources,” the petition reads.

The proposed lake would be located on the main stem of the Sulphur River in Red River, Titus and Franklin Counties and would cover an area of 66,000 acres. The organization behind the petition, Preserve Northeast Texas, argue it would flood heritage farmland, hardwood forest and wetlands.

They further argue another 130,000 acres would be sold off to mitigate wildlife habitat losses.

“We are proud to have so many friends and neighbors voicing their opposition to this devastating project, which would forever alter Northeast Texas and dramatically impact our way of life,” said Bill Ward, Preserve Northeast Texas Steering Committee member. “We have been fighting against Marvin Nichols for two decades — and we are just getting started.”

The Marvin Nichols Reservoir is proposed to help ease the future strain on the Dallas-Fort Worth area’s water supply. The water will primarily be pumped into the Metroplex. Preserve Northeast Texas argues there are other viable solutions besides displacing people and wildlife in another region.

Marvin Nichols Reservoir is entangled in a years-long battle between two regional water boards: Region C (Dallas-Fort Worth) and Region D (Northeast Texas). Region C views the reservoir as necessary by 2050.

The petition’s milestone comes on the heels of Region D’s letter to Region C last week pointing out conflicts in the two regions’ initial plans. The planning cycle is still early in the planning stages.

“We [Region D] realize that final decisions on potential projects for the upcoming Regional Water Plan have not occurred,” the letter read. “However, we are also aware that Region C has consistently included the potential Marvin Nichols Reservoir as a future water supply sources in its Plans.”

The letter goes on to state Region D has included for 20 years language opposed to the reservoir in any Regional or State Water Plan. The letter argues Marvin Nichols Reservoir “does not protect the economic, agricultural and natural resources of the region” and suggested Region C explore other avenues.

“These efforts could include coordinating and exploring other viable measures to increase water supply sources for Region C in the future as well as decreasing future demand, including but limited to fully utilizing water supplies in existing reservoirs, potential reallocation of water resources in existing reservoirs, additional reuse beyond what is proposed in the Region C Water Plan, and increased water conservation,” the letter read.