The 66,103-acre reservoir, one of several projects before the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), is expected to provide 451,500 acre-feet of water annually at a cost to taxpayers of $4.4 billion – according to 2018 estimates.

With rampant inflation driving up the cost of construction, the price today is likely much higher.

An additional 130,000 acres of land are needed for flood mitigation purposes in tandem with the reservoir itself.

Nearly 80% of the water supplied by the reservoir would be piped 150 miles to the Dallas-Fort Worth area to supplement its 7.6 million people. The state plans to make the reservoir operational by 2050. In total, approximately 30% of the reservoir’s water area would be available for municipal supply.

While the state oversees this project and all others at the air level, each company is run by the local water districts that sponsor the project. They accumulate the funds for each project and eventually go into debt. The sponsors of this reservoir are the Tarrant Regional Water District and the North Texas Municipal Water District.

The location of the project in northeast Texas – at the intersection of Red River, Titus, and Franklin counties along the Sulfur River – is a source of controversy. Vast tracts of private land lay in the project’s titanic path, setting the stage for a massive rollout of eminent domain.

A wave of opposition from locals threw sand into the bureaucratic cogs of the project, putting up roadblocks to state plans.

The Marvin Nichols Reservoir, named after the namesake half of the engineering firm Freese and Nichols commissioned to build the project, was first designed in 1984. But the push for its construction didn’t really begin until at the turn of the century.

Nichols himself oversaw the construction of two bodies of water: Lake Bridgeport in 1931 and Eagle Mountain Reservoir in 1932. He was also the first appointed chairman of the Texas Water Development Board – the agency assessing the project, responsible for regulating state water problems. .

Its commissioning date has been moved two decades this year state body of water, accentuating the frenzy of the project’s already growing opposition. This change was made to account for the population growth the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex has seen in recent years, documented by the 2020 census. The area also added just under 100,000 people from 2020 to 2021.

With a booming population comes a booming need for water supplies – but while the state’s population is expected to grow by 50% over the next half-century, the necessary increase in water supply should be only 9%.

Opponents of the reservoir generally take two forms: local landowners and area residents focused on land rights and the impact on daily life, and environmentalists focused on the effects of the reservoir on the ecosystem.

A group formed to oppose the project, named Preserve Northeast Texas (PNT), which garnered 1,600 signatures from across the state for its petition opposing Marvin Nichols.

Eminent domain is a tricky subject – often misused by the government for essential and free projects. In its 2005 decision Kelo vs. New Londonthe United States Supreme Court watered down the “public interest” justification required of the government to seize private land, while offering “just compensation”.

The Marvin Nichols Reservoir surely serves a public purpose, but not the public whose lands are in jeopardy. The lands in Region D of the state’s water would benefit the residents of Region C above all else.

“When will large metropolitan areas stop taking land from small towns?” asked a local resident named Pedro in a PNT statement. “Who’s to say your land isn’t next?”

And it’s not just land within the limits of the tank on the table. Those along the pipeline path to Dallas-Fort Worth may also face eminent domain usage unless an alternate solution is found.

Although not an individual comparison, the eminent domain fight on the Texas Central Railway has some similarities: the proposed high-speed railroad would connect Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston and would require private land in between.

Last year, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a challenge by landowners arguing against the project’s ability to use eminent domain, ruling that it qualifies as a public-use railroad under state law. Any legal challenge to Marvin Nichols would go its own way, but Texas Central’s decision would no doubt play into how a court might rule on the eminent domain aspect of this issue.

Opponents of the reservoir also claim that the water supply gains are unnecessary.

Suggested alternatives to the reservoir include water conservation, wastewater recycling and reprocessing, and repurposing some of Lake Texoma’s water for Dallas-Fort Worth supply needs.

Howard Slobodin, general counsel for the Trinity River Authority, which serves as administrative agent for Region C, said The Texan that he is unsure of the adequacy of Lake Texoma’s water supply capabilities beyond its current production. He also said the region is already using preservation and reprocessing.

“In water use, you look for the cheapest water first,” he explained, highlighting these two strategies. “Water planning is a 50-year exercise, so we need to think about these things now.”

The fight over Marvin Nichols pitted two regional water districts against each other. Ten years ago, Region D, where the reservoir would be located, opposed the project citing an “inter-regional conflict”.

But after agency mediation, the project remains in the state plans and no such competition has been reapplied during the 2021 water plan process. Currently, the project is not in yet. in its infancy, having not yet reached the stage of “water management strategies” during which construction begins.

The longest part of the process is the federal government licensing process, which can take up to 10 years, as well as a licensing process with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Various externalities accompany digging such a large ditch and filling it with a biblical amount of water. Foremost among these is the displacement of landowners whose lands are subject to eminent domain. Others include the loss of the land’s logging and agricultural capabilities, its effect on the tax base of local political subdivisions, and the flooding of any historic sites or cemeteries in the reservoir area.

Rivercrest ISD Superintendent Stanley Jessee, who opposes the project, sees the reservoir halving the district’s land mass. He said The Texan it means less funding for schools through the property tax system; the value of unaffected land would also increase, making it harder for landowners to continue paying taxes on their property.

Jessee also has a personal stake in the matter, saying some of his own land is in the reservoir area and much of it falls into the surrounding attenuation area.

According to Freese and Nichols analysisapproximately 43,000 acres of forest land and 15,000 acres of agricultural land lie within the potential reservoir boundaries, representing 1.6% and 0.8%, respectively, of the region’s resources.

“Mitigation is accomplished by investigating and recording archaeological sites and properly relocating cemeteries,” reads the analysis. The engineering company indicates that the potential cost of all these externalities is included in the total estimate.

Sorting it all out is doable, but it’s not an easy task. With such a significant shift comes a massive command to adjust to the new status quo.

As the struggle for this project rages on, this period of adjustment is just under 30 years and shrinking.