Facing the prospect of a $7 billion reservoir that would flood more than 66,000 acres of northeast Texas forest, residents voiced their concerns directly to water planning officials Monday in Arlington. 

“As far as I anticipate, Marvin Nichols [Reservoir] will not be fathomable,” said Jim Thompson, chairman of the northeast Texas water planning group and a founding member of reservoir opposition group Preserve Northeast Texas.

“I just think it’s too damaging, there are too many other ways to do it,” Thompson said of the state’s need to increase water supply. “It may not be the most lucrative way to do it, but by the same token, it’s far less costly on our region.”

For decades, groups of northeast Texans have argued the reservoir is unnecessary and would flood properties, negatively impact agriculture and timber industries, cut resident income and result in the loss of wildlife habitat. But Dallas-Fort Worth officials argue Marvin Nichols is needed to meet the water demands of a rapidly growing population. 

The debate has led to a showdown between water planning groups in Dallas-Fort Worth and northeast Texas. Last year, state Rep. Gary VanDeaver, R-New Boston, asked the Texas Water Development Board to conduct a feasibility review of the reservoir to be completed by January 2025. 

A draft of the feasibility review released in September found the Dallas-Fort Worth area is in need of the reservoir due to significant growth in population and water demand. The study determined that there was no reason the proposed reservoir wasn’t feasible in terms of costs, land acquisition, economic impact or the estimated timeline. 

Simone Kiel, of the Freese and Nichols Inc. infrastructure engineering firm, discussed the findings of the Marvin Nichols feasibility review during a meeting with the Region C planning group, which represents the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Kiel explained that by 2080 the region will require 1.3 million acres worth of water supply in northeast Texas per year to meet increased demand in booming Dallas-Fort Worth. 

Dallas-Fort Worth water planners are working with their counterparts in northeast Texas, known as Region D, and are pursuing other options in conjunction as the proposed reservoir would not completely meet the needs of cities in North Texas, Kiel said. 

Anticipated to be completed by 2050, the reservoir would be mostly supplied by current and conserved water, making up about 67% of the reservoir’s total supply, according to a 2021 water plan by Region C. Northeast Texas opponents of the reservoir have sought to remove the reservoir from the state’s water plan or, at the least, push its anticipated completion back to 2070. 

Speakers at Monday’s meeting described the reservoir as an “archaic” and “outdated” means of providing water to North Texas, advocating for greater conservation methods before building Marvin Nichols. 

“The easiest way to have more water is not to waste it in the first place. Water policies of the past are not the solutions for our future,” said Anne Tindell, a Nacogdoches resident. 

Opposition pushes for more conservation before reservoir construction

The project was first proposed in the state’s water plan in 1968 with the intent to pump 80% of the reservoir’s supply to the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Projected to be located along the Sulphur River, the area is considered one of the top sites in Texas in regard to surface water protection and acquisition, according to a 2008 study conducted by state water officials. 

The remaining 20% of the water would remain in the Sulphur Basin for local use, according to the review. 

Speakers suggested the Dallas-Fort Worth planning group consider utilizing already existing reservoirs to supply the region with water. There are more than 120 reservoirs throughout the state, according to Preserve Northeast Texas. 

Kiel said the Bois D’arc Lake and Lake Ralph Hall reservoirs would contribute about 17% of water to the eventual Marvin Nichols Reservoir.

“There are other options that I ask you to consider,” said Evan Purviance, a farmer in Cuthand. “Do some work on our preexisting reservoirs, repair our infrastructure, channel water from elsewhere, but have sense enough to consider that a project of this magnitude is not feasible. Dallas-Fort Worth doesn’t want our water. They want our land.”

Thompson said only three entities — the North Texas Municipal Water District, the Upper Trinity Water District and the Tarrant Regional Water District — were slated to benefit from the reservoir, suggesting the water planning group was putting aside an unnecessary surplus. 

The reservoir would require a surface area of 66,000 acres, utilizing a pipeline to run from the site to Bridgeport in Wise County. Capital costs of the project come in at an estimated $7 billion — up from previous estimates of $4.4 billion, with 60% of the costs going toward transmission of water. 

In addition to the reservoir’s actual acreage, the state would have to acquire at least 130,000 more acres of privately owned land to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat and meet federal requirements. 

“That’s a lot of acreage, a lot of generational land involved in that,” Thompson said. 

The feasibility study found the reservoir would flood about 7.4% of Region D’s timberlands and .8% of its agricultural and pasture lands. When Kiel explained that only .03% of the region’s farmland would be engulfed by the reservoir, members of the audience laughed. It would continue on to take up about 7.7% of land rich with timber resources in Red River, Titus and Franklin counties, according to the review. 

The timber industry in northeast Texas thrives by producing lumber for pine sawmills, hardwood sawmills, paper printing, and paper mills, but would not be possible without the location it is based in, said Thompson. 

“If we have to travel to get those resources, we cannot compete on the regional, national and international basis,” he said. 

Economic impact of reservoir, land acquisition

The projected costs of the reservoir are not going only toward the acquisition of the land, said Kiel, but could also make lasting improvements on land, thus benefiting the local economy. 

Citing a socioeconomic analysis in the Dallas-Fort Worth 2021 water plan adopted last year, Kiel emphasized the construction of the reservoir would “boost” economic activity by over $5 billion.

Janice Benzanson, senior policy director for the Texas Conservation Alliance and a leader of Preserve Northeast Texas, suggested the socioeconomic benefits would only impact environmental and engineering firms working to bring the reservoir into the picture, creating a conflict of interest. 

“Whose pockets are being lined?” Purviance told the audience. 

In an interview prior to the meeting, Benzanson stressed the importance of utilizing other means of water conservation, such as enforcing conservation regulations among residents and recycling municipal water, to start. 

Benzanson also spoke on behalf of landowners, noting the struggles people are already facing as they prepare for the loss of property. Northeast Texans are unsure as to whether they should buy or sell land or expand their businesses, she said. 

“It’s their home,” said Benzanson. “For some people, they’ve had this land in their families since, you know, the mid 1800s and, you know, they grew up there. … There’s a whole personal side to it, too.”

The widespread concern over land loss stems from residents who may be forced to sell their land to the state through eminent domain, allowing Texas the authority to take private property for public use. 

The public has until Oct. 25 to submit public comments on the feasibility study, which is expected to be delivered to the Legislature in January.