Area residents wanting to preserve their land say no to Marvin Nichols Reservoir

By Marlene Bohr
mbohr@steelcountrybee.com

The conflict between Region C and Region D water planning boards afforded public comments at Region D’s water planning meeting held in Mount Pleasant on April 16.
The conflict lies with Region C, west of this area including the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Region C desires to have the Marvin Nichols Reservoir built to furnish water to the metroplex area. Region D, representing several counties in Northeast Texas, does not want the reservoir.
The proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir project would result in one of the largest reservoirs in Texas, flooding over 72,000 acres on the Sulphur River in rural Northeast Texas.  According to a report from the US Fish and Wildlife, it would require anywhere from 163,000 acres up to 683,000 acres to mitigate for the wildlife habitat loses. If built, Marvin Nichols would cost $3.4 billion. Land taken for mitigation would greatly reduce tax revenues for the counties, schools and cities and could take it completely off the tax roll.  There would be a significant loss to the forest industry in Northeast Texas.  
Region D Chairman Bret McCoy from Daingerfield said people were welcome to make comments to the board.
“There are obviously some emotionally charged issues we are dealing with here,” Mr. McCoy said.
During the comment portion of the meeting, Jim Davis from Daingerfield spoke briefly and handed out a public comment sheet representing Bi-County Water Supply Corporation’s view of Marvin Nichols.
Bi County position is that the lake does not need to be taken out of the plans, but work needs to be done on the specifics in a way that it is helpful to Region D.
A man from Red River voiced his views on Marvin Nichols.
“We are hearing a lot of questions about the lake,” he said. “We have asked questions for years and keep asking. In Red River County the first I heard about it told about the lake and how it would be a good deal for us and we could retain property rights up to the lake’s edge. After going to the first meeting, I found out that was a totally different deal. We do not get to keep our property. The mitigation was in the fine print. A lot of people did not know about the mitigation. I asked what it was. They said it was a site of land set aside for the animals. I found out it varies on what kind of land was flooded and how it would be mitigated.
“We recently heard from our Washington people we had to pass the Affordable Care Act to find out what is in it. It seems this is the case with this and it seems like the devil is in the details. It was told to us that the metroplex would pay for it. We would be entitled to 20 percent of the water. On the 20 percent of the water, do we have to pay storage for it?  That leaves 80 percent for the metroplex. What portion of the 20 percent does each entity get?”
The gentleman said people should look at what happened at Cooper Lake.
 

Read more in our e-edition:http://www.etypeservices.com/SWF/LocalUser/Pittsburg1//Magazine 51498/Full/index.aspx?id= 51498