The roughly 66,000-acre Marvin Nichols Reservoir first appeared in the state water plan in 1968 but a shovel has yet to break ground on the project.

Proposed as a solution to the North Texas’ need for water, the reservoir was set aside multiple times in the last few decades but has been brought back to the forefront as the area’s population continues to boom and the demand for water is increasing.

The reservoir would be along the Sulphur River, upstream of the confluence of the White Oak Creek in Franklin, Red River and Titus counties, and pump water more than 100 miles to the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Before moving forward with the project, the state Legislature in 2023 asked the Texas Water Development Board to complete a feasibility study.

The draft report, published in September, weighed “the implementation timeline, associated costs, land acquisition considerations, and the economic impact of the proposed project,” according to the board’s website.

The 28-page document can be found on the Texas Water Development Board’s website at twdb.texas.gov.

Public input on the report can be submitted via email to feasibility@twdb.texas.gov by 11:59 p.m. Oct. 25. The final report will be presented to the legislative budget board and Gov. Greg Abbott by Jan. 5.

Timely and feasible

The summary of the report says the board found the Marvin Nichols Reservoir project is timely, financially and ecologically feasible.

Some unknowns were flagged.

“There are uncertainties associated with any large public infrastructure project, including related project costs and permitting, that will diminish” as the project progresses, according to the report. It listed planning factors, including population projects, water demand projects, water supply, potential water shortages and implementation of water management strategies that have “associated uncertainties that can be difficult to quantify.”

As of August, the Marvin Nichols Reservoir was still being considered by the Region C Water Planning Group for inclusion as a “recommended strategy” in its 2026 water plan, according to the draft. The reservoir would be in Region D.

Timeline for construction

Both the 2021 Region C Regional Water Plan and the 2022 State Water Plan indicate the reservoir should be constructed and ready to supply water by 2050.

The regional water plan noted the permits tied to water quality and water rights for a new lake or reservoir in Texas could take up to 15 to 20 years to obtain, pending public opposition. No permit applications have been submitted.

Although the timeline will differ, the report said it would likely undergo “similar steps and milestones” as Bois d’Arc Lake and Lake Ralph Hall reservoirs in Fannin County, which were also in planning for decades and recently reached the construction phase.

Associated costs

The feasibility report says the estimated design and construction cost for the project is more than $4.4 billion (in 2018 dollars), citing the 2021 Region C plan.

“Although the total cost to implement the project will be large, the estimated unit cost of the water supply that will be provided by the Marvin Nichols Reservoir is lower than estimated unit costs of many other water supply strategies recommended in the 2022 State Water Plan.”

Though it’s not included in the report, Region C’s lead consultant gave a presentation during a Sept. 30 meeting saying the total cost to build the reservoir is estimated to be more than $7 billion.

Land acquisition considerations

The reservoir is planned to inundate about 66,103 acres and store an estimated 1.5 million acre-feet of water. This acreage count only includes the reservoir.

Federal policies will require additional land be used for mitigation purposes with the goal of offsetting any adverse impacts of development, but the report doesn’t say how much land or where. It does note the mitigation could be higher than the 1:1 ratio listed in the 2021 regional water plan, meaning the project has the potential to impact more than 132,200 acres.

The type of land being impacted will also be taken into consideration, such as saying the reservoir could impact a “large quantity of high-quality habitat acreage” as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, according to the report, including bottomland hardwoods.

Economic impacts

Several analyses over the last two decades have been completed on the potential socioeconomic impacts, according to the report.

The quantitative analysis included summaries of impacts for land currently classified as grasslands, timber and cultivated agricultural but only in the area that would be inundated. The report says there is potential for positive economic impacts — such as increased local labor income during and following construction, new residents who would need housing and increased county tax revenue — “would be substantial and overall beneficial.”

No impacts or compensatory mitigation were considered for timbering-associated services, the beef cattle industry and loss of grazing area, or loss of income from decreased hunting tourism. The report also did not say how many people could potentially be displaced by the construction of the reservoir or due to mitigation land.

It’s impossible to “identify, anticipate and quantify every economic impact potentially associated with a large infrastructure project — especially one that is not anticipated to be online until 2050,” according to the report. However, it says, no economic impacts were identified that would make the project infeasible, even with recognizing the potential limitations of what information is available.