Metroplex boards look at East Texas reservoirs

By LYNN MONTGOMERY | East Texas Edition

January 29, 2004 -- When Dallas City Council members refused to spend $600,000 towards the Marvin Nichols Reservoir on Jan. 7, opposition to the reservoir sighed a sigh of relief. But, regional water managers say it is not prudent to back off the project just yet.

"We are still looking at all the possibilities (for water) and Marvin Nichols in one of them; so is Toledo Bend and Texoma, Wright Patman," said Jim Parks, general manager of the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD), which covers cities such as Forney, Garland, Wolfe City, McKinney, and Mesquite.

The Marvin Nichols Reservoir, a part of the state water plan since the 1960s, was the main, long-term water source for the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex until it was changed in 2003 from a "proposed" site to a "potential" site by the Region D water board, whose representatives are East Texans. NTMWD, along with other representatives from water districts in the metroplex, comprise the Region C water board. Even though the reservoir's status was changed, Region C still has the authority to go through with the building of the reservoir, or determine another source for their projected lack of water in the future.

Parks added there are many unanswered questions, "and we haven't got to the point that a clear decision has to be made. We are trying to get enough information."

Information that could come from a Sulphur River basin-wide study, performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which Parks cited would give a better indication of the optimization of the water resources in the basin.

The outcome of the study could be a recommendation for Marvin Nichols to be built, or it could be a recommendation for one of the Parkhouse Reservoirs to be built. The Parkhouse Reservoirs would be closer to the Cooper Reservoir, also called Jim Chapman, which is already pumping water via a pipeline to Lake Lavon, which eventually flows to the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.

Opposition from landowners, environmentalists, timber companies, etc. is just as great for the Parkhouse Reservoirs to be built as it is for Marvin Nichols.

The basin-wide study was discussed between the NTMWD, and other water managers, along with Judy Lee and Mike Burke from the Sulphur River Basin Authority, at a meeting on Jan. 12 at the NTMWD's office.

"This was not a public meeting," Burke said on Jan. 21. "Just like I am talking to you right now, it is not a public meeting. We went to them to see if they would be interested in providing funds about the log jam. That was the main concern."

Burke added the basin-wide study would be informative about the water resources and how they could be best used.

The Corps, with exception of Fannin County, would study current reservoirs Wright Patman and Cooper. Fannin County, according to Parks, has some type of understanding in regards to the new Ralph Hall Reservoir. They would also study the Sulphur River log jam off of Highway 37, and try to answer whether or not Marvin Nichols, or Parkhouse I and II, would be feasible.

Regarding Lake Ralph Hall, the Flower Mound City Council, during their monthly meeting on Jan. 22, approved the engineering firm of Kellogg, Brown and Root to perform an alternative analysis, costing up to $83,000, on the potential lake.

"We are the largest member of the Upper Trinity (water district), accounting for 47 percent of the water use; meaning we are their biggest customer. Basically, we want to make sure that the expense (of building the reservoir) is justified for the amount of water that will be produced," Kevin Lahner, assistant to the town manager, said on Jan. 23.

Lahner added the city is working through several options with the water district and "think there is some cost equity issues that need to be discussed."

The lake, north of Ladonia, is one water option for Denton County and possibly Irving, according to Lahner. It is estimated that 30 million gallons per day can be utilized from the lake.

Parks stated Lake Ralph Hall could not be used for their water options due to it being to small.

"Options are being studied. And we have to ask are these options feasible? What are the needs of the people? We have got to look at the options, and figure out what is the least amount of impact," Parks said. "We are not trying to harm or hurt anybody. We are trying to provide a service so people can have water to drink."

Parks said he was somewhat skeptical about the project because it is undetermined "how is the money going to be spent.

"I would give consideration if it is meanful," which is dependent upon the scope of work that the Corps want to do, Parks concluded.