By LORI COPE | East Texas Edition

Landowner David Hembree (standing, right) addresses the TCEQ officials during the recent public hearing in Ladonia. Hembree, as president of the Fannin County Farm Bureau, said the lake would eliminate some of the county’s best farmland. -- Staff photo by Cope

April 4, 2006 - While a few comments “for” the proposed Lake Ralph Hall in southwestern Fannin County were issued during the March 27 public hearing in Ladonia, the majority of citizens standing to speak before the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Upper Trinity Regional Water District (UTRWD) leaders cited opposition to the plan.

UTRWD has applied with TCEQ to construct and maintain a 7,500-acre lake on the North Sulphur River near Ladonia, and part of the application process allows citizens to comment on the proposal. “A safe and reliable water supply for the future” is UTRWD’s purpose behind the plan that will encompass 11,200 acres (which includes the lake and about 4,000 surrounding acres).

Statistics show Texas’ population is increasing, and will likely double by the year 2050. The state designated the duty of ensuring water for all residents to regional water planning groups, and the Texas Water Development Board is now reviewing and adopting plans prepared by the 16 regional groups. Region C Water Planning Group represents 16 counties in the fast-growing Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, and last spring the group voted to include UTRWD’s proposed Lake Ralph Hall in their plan. 

UTRWD is a conservation district created to provide towns, cities and utilities with a sound, long-term water supply. Lake Ralph Hall would provide about 30 million gallons of water per day, and 15 million gallons per day of reuse water, for the Upper Trinity service area, the City of Ladonia, and Fannin County, at a cost of $1.10 per 1,000 gallons of water (and 17 cents per 1,000 gallons after the bonds to build the lake are paid), according to UTRWD.

Tom Taylor, UTRWD executive director, told the crowd of about 200 gathered in Ladonia on March 27 that when considering sites for a water-source lake, he mentally made a list of things that would make the site “ideal.” With information from geological, environmental, cultural, and erosion studies, Taylor said Lake Ralph Hall would minimally affect residences and cemeteries, require little mitigation, improve wildlife habitation and erosion problems, be close to an existing water pipeline, etc.

But not every entity served by UTRWD welcomes the plan for the lake. Flower Mound city council member Laurie Long said the recommended site is “less than ideal” specifically because of high sediment rates, it would not be spring fed, and the environmental costs are greater than reported. She requested a halt of UTRWD’s application until the issues could be addressed.

Details from UTRWD were questioned throughout the night’s meeting, including by a Flower Mound resident and UTRWD board member Chris Torley. He opposes UTRWD’s application for the lake due to lack of information, and unanswered questions, by UTRWD. Torley said the district is “not forthcoming with information” regarding the area around the lake, special taxing, and other issues about the project.

Long also pointed out UTRWD already has a high debt load, and if Lake Ralph Hall is added, it would elevate their debt to $1.5 billion (“yes, that’s billion with a ‘b’”) that would be put on the district’s members.

When questioned about how close to the mitigated property, around the lake’s edge, landowners would be able to build, Taylor said it would be a county zoning issue, but disputes of this statement were given during the meeting’s formal comment period. Since UTRWD would own the lake, Taylor said “we’d have no objections” to the building of homes, etc. along the project area’s boundaries, but that the county’s zoning ordinances would govern. Taylor also pointed out that of the approximately 4,000 acres sequestered for the lake’s flood control area, some would be used for public parks and areas.

Landowners that would lose their property in the project were also vocal at the meeting. Long pointed out UTRWD would pay $700 per acre for the land acquired in the project. That amount was cited as unfair by at least one member of the public. Citing biblical restitution calculations for value of property taken, local resident Mike Yarborough said UTRWD should pay landowners $3,500 per acre.

Yarborough also said Fannin County does not need the lake’s water supply, but rather residents in the UTRWD need the water in the future. Another Fannin County resident, Shane Wallace, noted the county has enough groundwater to supply its residents if the population tripled. Adding to that, David Nabors, a Northeast Texas landowner, said information shows 20 percent of the lake’s water would be available to Fannin County ... but it would be at UTRWD’s cost. Similarly, Chip Nicholson of an area water supply board, said he is in favor of the lake if there was more control of the water supply for their customers.

Another key point was made by Fannin County resident David Hembree: “Do you know what the number one natural resource is for Fannin County?” he asked. “I know you don’t know, so I’ll tell you. It’s land. ... You ask us to give you 11,200 acres so some fella in Denton County can water his yard, that’s hard for us to do.”

Hembree, who also serves as president of the county’s Farm Bureau, said the chapter’s 1,800-member families are opposed to the lake. Hembree also cited the county’s largest industry is agriculture, which generates $67.5 million in annual revenue for the county.

Yarborough pointed out Lake Ralph Hall would “take out some of the best farmland in the county.”

One audience member, who did not offer public comment, said the lake would take her five-generation family farm.

Taylor had earlier pointed out that “obviously, for people within the site of the lake, the impact is not minimal. We undertand that and we’ll approach that with sincerity and concern.”

Fannin County resident Lyndal Burnett said it is a shame for the property owners who will lose their long-time, family-owned land. “I own land in the bottom, and that land will be at the very bottom of the lake. ... But that’s the way the world works.” In support for Texas residents’ future water needs, Burnett commented in favor of the lake.

In opposition to the lake, Jim Thompson of Cass County, chief financial officer for Ward Timber Company, spoke on the behalf of his company and another East Texas company. He cited Lake Ralph Hall would reduce the water flow downstream, which would impact his business and paper mills in the region. Thompson, who also serves on the Northeast Texas Region D Water Planning Group, added that UTRWD’s conservation plans were not up to par.

Lack of good conservation plans was also an issue cited by Janice Bezanson of the Texas Committee on Natural Resources. She pointed out many reasons why the lake should not be constructed, including damage to property owners’ livelihoods, increase in taxes, and that existing reservoirs, such as Lake Texoma and Wright Patman, already have “more (water) than this lake would produce.”

TCEQ will take the formal comments given by over 20 people at the March 27, and those at the March 28 public meeting in Lewisville, and add them to the application process, which now turns to “technical review,” according to a TCEQ spokesperson. Additional environmental information has been requested of UTRWD for the review. The technical review can take nine to 12 months, before it’s sent to the TCEQ commissioners. The commissioners can approve, deny, or send the application to the State Office of Administrative Hearings if there has been requests for “contested case hearings, ... which in this case I think there will be,” the TCEQ spokesperson said.