• This project would result in one of the largest reservoirs in Texas.  It would flood 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.
  • State law requires that projects in the Texas Water Plan protect the water, agricultural, and natural resources of the state. The Region D Water Planning Group has found that Marvin Nichols does not do so.
  • There are a number of alternatives to Marvin Nichols that would not involve flooding new land: municipal water recycling/reuse, obtaining water from Wright Patman Reservoir, reallocating flood storage to water supply in Lake Texoma, obtaining water from Toledo Bend Reservoir, or a combination of these and other smaller sources.
  • Marvin Nichols is a direct threat to Northeast Texas’ economy including nearly $2 billion of economic activity, $600 million in value-added, 8,000 jobs and $400 million in labor income.
  • Land taken for mitigation is taken off the tax roll.  The counties, schools and cities would lose much needed tax revenue.
  • Region C has one of the highest rates of water use per person in the state.  35% to 45% of the water used by Region C is for lawn watering.  Marvin Nichols Reservoirs would take prime timber and agricultural lands.  In some cases it would flood homes and cemeteries where loved ones are buried.  All this so the metro-plex can sell water.
  • 17% percent of existing water supply is lost in the Dallas-Fort Worth area from leaking distribution infrastructure.
  • The Texas forest sector plays an important role in the state economy.  During the past decade, the wood-based industry has remained one of the top 10 manufacturing sectors in the state.  In 25 of the 43 East Texas counties, the forest sector served as one of the top two largest manufacturing employers.
  • In a 2011 report from the Texas A&M Forestry Service, “The forest sector had direct impact of $15.8 billion in industry output and employed over 60,000 people with a payroll of $3.5 billion.  The state received around $4.9 billion directly from the forest sector through payroll, other employee compensation and property taxes.  Including direct, indirect, and induced impacts, the forest sector had a total economic impact of $27.0 billion in industry output and supported more than 127,000 jobs with a payroll of $6.9 billion.  Every job created in the sector resulted in another 1.13 jobs in the state.  Every dollar generated in the sector contributed an additional 70 cents to the rest of the Texas economy.”
  • Major dams remove water flow not only from streams and rivers but from the fluvial underground flow thus devastating not only the natural environment in streams and rivers but in the land along the streams and rivers.   This would reduce farm and timber production, increase erosion, destroy wildlife habitat, and cause adverse environmental impacts all the way to the bays.
  • Over 50 percent of existing water supply in the Dallas-Fort – Worth area is used for landscape water of non-native grasses and trees. This waste of potable water could easily be reduced up to 80 percent by use of native plants, reduced irrigation days, rain- sensing equipment, and various other sensible, cost-effective and needed conservation practices.
  • Sulphur River Basin provides vital resources for Northeast Texas economy.  The loss of which will destroy major manufacturing employers who produce lumber and paper.  It will displace rural families who grow crops and livestock that feed Northeast Texas and the Dallas-Fort Worth area.  It will devastate rural towns and school districts when massive acreage is removed from their tax rolls and farm population is lost.
  • Additional water supply needs of the Dallas-Fort Worth area can be met by funding modifications to existing reservoirs in the Sulphur River Basin and purchasing such water from Northeast Texas water districts at far less cost than construction of new reservoirs.
  • The desire for construction of additional major reservoirs in the Sulphur River Basin is driven by the desire for profit by engineering and construction firms in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and the desire to sell excess water from new major reservoirs to other customers outside the Dallas-Fort Worth area resulting in profit for Dallas-Fort Worth area water districts and their executives.
  • William Crowder, a petroleum geologist who began working in East Texas in 1979 stated “the Marvin Nichols lake proposed location would be on top of the Mexia-Talco fault system and the Louann Salt which underlies the proposed reservoir area.”  He also states the Louann Salt underlies most of the area that would be impounded by this lake. He is currently a resident in Dallas.   Salt, of course, is easily dissolved by water and leaching of the louann Salt could lead to futher subsidence and fault movement.”
  • The TWDB staff memo indicates that it cannot fund projects in Region D from funds that require a project to be in the state water plan because the court “reversed the TWDB’s decisions approving the two regional plans”.  This is inaccurate.  The court only reversed the Region C Plan.  The Region D plan was not challenged.  Therefore, there should be no restriction on funding projects in Region D.