The regional water plans filed b a Northeast Texas and an East Texas groups were among the five plans approved May 16, by the Texas Water Development Board, clearing the way for TWDB to prepare the State Water Plan.

The 15 regional water plans issued to the TWDB by Jan. 3 deadline have now all been approved by the board. Region L’s plan (involving South Central Texas) was not filed by the deadline. The Region L plan issued to TWDB in February will be used in TWDB’s development of the State Water Plan, according to Carla Daws, TWDB communications officer.

The state’s regional groups were formed to develop plans for ensuring adequate wter supply needs through 2060. The State Water Plan, to developed by TWDB from the approved regional plans, will be provided to state leaders in about six months.

The Northeast Texas (Region D) Regional Water Planning Area includes 18 counties and a portion of Smith County. Groundwater and surface water resources are abundant in the region and are generated from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer in the central and northern part of the region and the Trinity aquifer in the north; as well as from the Red, Sulphur, Cypress, and Sabine river basins and small parts of the Trinity and Neches River basins.

After three years of analyzing data and taking public comment, the Northeast Texas planning group determined that Marvin Nichols should not be included in the plan because it would harm the timber industry and would destroy tens of thousands of acres of bottomland hardwood forests. Texas law requires that regional water plans protect the state’s agricultural, natural and water resources.

Last month, the chairman of the water development board, E.G. Rod Pittman, voted against the Region C plan, citing the need for greater cooperation between the regions.

Jim Thompson, chairman of the Region D Planning Group, emphasized at the May 16 TWDB meeting that Northeast Texas is not trying to hoard water that might be needed by another region. Thompson told the water development board, “Region D has said all along that we were willing to look at ways to provide water to other regions of the state that don’t involve the huge economic impact of building a new dam. As an example, the Corps of Engineers has studied alternatives for increasing the yield of Wright Patman Reservoir.”

Opponents of the Marvin Nichols have long supported alternative water supplies for DFW – desalinating water from Lake Texoma, raising the conservation storage elevation of Wright Patman, and purchasing water from other existing reservoirs – as an alternative to Marvin Nichols.

Norman Johns, water resources scientist for the National Wildlife Federation, has estimated that if Region C were to follow a state task force recommendation on water conservation, the region could save over 900,000 acre-feet annually by 2060. This would save nearly twice as much water as Region C would get from Marvin Nichols, at a fraction of the cost.

Marvin Nichols, predicted to supply 450,000 to 490,000 acre-feet of water annually to the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and its 120 to 150-mile pipeline, would cost more than $2 billion. In addition to the 72,000 acres that would be flooded for construction of the reservoir, at least an additional 140,000 acres would be required for mitigation of the site.

“Marvin Nichols isn’t good for anyone”, said Bezanson. “ It will hurt ratepayers in Dallas-Fort Worth area and it will force hundreds of East Texas families off their land. In a state growing as rapidly as Texas, using water more efficiently is the only logical thing to do.”