Talk is brewing about a planned reservoir in NE Texas on the Sulphur River, which is prime SQ territory. The site in on the northern edge of Titus County where the river is extremely desolate and the terrain is unfriendly. There has been a thriving population of monkeys in those bottoms for a long time, or that's what the locals think. A look at reports over the years and the geography of the area strongly supports that.
Innyhoo, it might be a good thing for those in my neck of the woods to keep an eye on. When the Army COE gets the lake-building bug, they really kick some round, full butt when it comes to digging and clearing. This will almost certainly result in some displacement and migration, and it's fair to theorize that they will follow the creeks and rivers. Might be a superb place to stake out at the right time.
Which way they would go is anybody's guess, because the site is surrounded by established SQ range. Red River Co. and OK to the north, and E. Tx piney woods in the other 3 directions. Either way, it's probably something worth keeping in mind if Texas monkeys occupy your thoughts. If the lake is approved and dirt starts a-flyin', I'll have to spend some time out there and see what gets rousted by the big yellow machines.
Full Version: OK now, don't be drownin' my monkeys
Hope they send some up this way... 
Q: Hey, what's that monkey doing in the river???
A: The backstroke.
Ooops! Wrong thread, sorry...
A: The backstroke.
Ooops! Wrong thread, sorry...
This news just underscores why i think it's important that we try to prove BF's existence as soon as possible.
If there was some endangered species of beetle that lived in that valley, the resevoir would probably never be allowed to go ahead, or it wolud be tied up in legal wrangling for ever. But Sasquatch habitat? Nobody cares.
If they were proved to exist, on the other hand, the land (and the bigfoot population) could probably be saved.
-robo
If there was some endangered species of beetle that lived in that valley, the resevoir would probably never be allowed to go ahead, or it wolud be tied up in legal wrangling for ever. But Sasquatch habitat? Nobody cares.
If they were proved to exist, on the other hand, the land (and the bigfoot population) could probably be saved.
-robo
Don't forget Northwest Louisiana, maybe some will come here... 
I have spoken to Dave Moldal of the National Wildlife Federation in Austin about this issue last year. I informed him that we, the TBRC, as a group, were opposed to this project. Here are some links to stories about this reservoir.
September 10, 2001
NWF and Texas Residents Oppose Damaging Dam and Reservoir
The National Wildlife Federation is organizing local residents in Northeast Texas in a grassroots effort to promote conservation and oppose construction of the $1.7 billion Marvin Nichols dam and reservoir.
The state of Texas is facing many water challenges, and as a result, the state has undergone a lengthy water planning process. During this process, planning groups study population growth, water use and demand, and how to best use Texas' limited available fresh water. Also, the plan must consider conservation of water resources and protection of wildlife. This project, the Marvin Nichols dam and reservoir, is the most costly project proposed in the state's plan.
Marvin Nichols has been recommended by regional water planning groups and the Texas Water Development Board in its 50-year plan to provide for the municipal water needs of the Dallas Metroplex. The project will remove 161 billion gallons of water per year from Northeast Texas and ship it via 172-miles of pipeline to the Dallas/Ft.Worth area. The pipeline, according to the Dallas Morning News, is large enough to accommodate a Ford Explorer. This dam, on the Sulphur River, would bury 72,000 acres of rural Texas, including productive farms, family businesses, and ranches.
"This is a battle over the control of water. This is water that Dallas and Ft. Worth want to import at the expense of rural Texans," said Dave Moldal, NWF Regional Organizer in Austin. "In building Marvin Nichols, 30,000 acres of high-quality rare bottomland hardwood forest and 15,000 acres of mixed post-oak forest will be destroyed. This bottomland provides essential habitat to a wide variety of game and non-game wildlife species. In addition, any time the natural flow of a river is diverted, it affects fish and wildlife habitat downstream."
"I don't see the need to put property that's used for farming, logging, hunting and fishing under water just so folks in Dallas can water their
lawns," said Max Shumake, Dekalb, Texas, a landowner and citizen leader.
NWF and other groups say the project is a waste of taxpayer dollars and would be calamitous to migratory birds, native mussels, wild turkey,
white-tailed deer, and the forest habitat that wildlife need to survive. If Dallas and other regional communities would simply lower their water usage rates approximately 25 percent over the next 50 years, which would still put them far above the state average, the National Wildlife Federation contends the need for Marvin Nichols would be eliminated.
"Dallas/Ft. Worth water users consume far and away more water than any other city in the state of Texas. There are no incentives for citizens to
conserve, no organized plan for conservation, or conservation initiatives by the water utilities," said Janice Bezanson, Executive Director of the Texas Committee on Natural Resources (TCONR), NWF's state affiliate.
This summer, NWF and TCONR organized three citizens' meetings about the threats of this project - threats not only to their land and livelihoods, but to wildlife and wildlife habitat that would be permanently lost. These residents are contacting their elected officials, and preparing for public hearings this fall.
The Shumake family, who owns hundreds of acres of bottomlands, is worried his neighbors that depend on the land will be flooded out by the
construction of Marvin Nichols. "Heck, some of these families have been here since the Alamo. Stopping this dam is our Alamo."
NE Texas to Dallas: Don't take water
09/16/2002
By RANDY LEE LOFTIS / The Dallas Morning News
GILMER, Texas – If you want to start a scrape around here, try saying this cussword: Dallas.
"I think we ought to be able to go over to Dallas and buy it for whatever we think it's worth," declared Robert Lewis, who lives in northeast Texas' Red River County but is spending a lot of time these days fuming about the big city to the west. "Because that's what they're doing to our land."
Wood County resident Don Hightower concurred. "From what I've read, there's enough water running through the storm drains and off the lawns of Dallas to supply the needs of Tyler and Longview," he said. "I think the city of Dallas needs a wakeup call for its wasteful tactics."
Many of the 300 at a recent northeast Texas water planning meeting in Gilmer's civic center shouted approval. Dozens trooped to the microphone to add their amens. Most wore Day-Glo stickers urging, "Don't let Dallas [hog] our water."
Dallas' troubles in the northeast Texas piney woods might go deeper than its image. The $1.7 billion Marvin Nichols reservoir that the city and its neighbors want for a future water supply – a sprawling dam and lake proposed along the quiet, isolated Sulphur River – has stirred a grass-roots revolt of loggers, truckers and fourth-generation ranchers. Even the project's name comes from outside the northeast Texas area: Marvin Nichols was a Fort Worth water planner who served as the first chairman of the Texas Water Development Board.
Opponents say urban North Texas must curb its water use – the highest per person in Texas – before it dams a distant river. "I was born in Dallas, but I don't feel like I owe them a thing," said Red River County resident Mark Evans. "They waste lots of water."
At 18, Mr. Evans is a booted, cowboy-hat-wearing, brand-new voter – and with elections coming, some local politicians are whipping up rough waters for a project that had seen smooth sailing.
U.S. Rep. Max Sandlin, D-Marshall, and four Texas House members have signed a letter saying the only local consensus they detect is against it. Next week, regional water planners are expected to consider rescinding support for the plan. Even if state water officials are right in calling that just a symbolic move, Gov. Rick Perry warns Dallas that Marvin Nichols is no longer a sure bet.
"It appears to me that if Dallas solely relies upon the building of Marvin Nichols, they could miscalculate," the Republican governor said in an interview.
"We know how long it takes to build a reservoir," he said. "There's no guarantee that, with [the] environmental impact that this could have on the state of Texas, that it couldn't stay in the courthouse for decades. I want to make sure that Dallas has an appropriate supply of water, and I
think we need to be looking at other alternatives to Marvin Nichols."
Those, he said, could include water from Oklahoma, Louisiana or elsewhere in Texas – but they must include clamping down on residents' water use. "Dallas has got to do a better job of water conservation," Mr. Perry said.
Local control endorsed
Tony Sanchez, Mr. Perry's Democratic challenger, said he doesn't know details of the project or the fight. But he said he also endorses conservation – and thinks one region shouldn't be able to take another's water. "I don't want to take local control of water away from people," Mr. Sanchez said.
Such warnings might raise questions about political support for Marvin Nichols, which is still in the earliest planning stages and wouldn't supply water before 2030. But another veteran Texas politician said he thinks all the protests are for naught.
"In my opinion, the reservoir will be built," said state Sen. Bill Ratliff, whose northeast Texas district includes the potential lake site and surrounding areas. The Republican from Mount Pleasant is also serving temporarily as Texas' lieutenant governor.
Marvin Nichols will be built, Mr. Ratliff said, because urban North Texas – sprawling, populous and becoming more so, with big-city political muscle in Austin and Washington that trumps small-town northeast Texas – wants it.
"The question is whether it will be built by a local entity, with water sold [to North Texas utilities] under contract, or whether the Dallas-Fort Worth entities just go get the permits and build the thing themselves," Mr. Ratliff said. "We'd be waging a big battle with a small stick if we
tried to stop a project like that."
Not that he wants to. North Texas water systems would pay to build, finance and operate the dam and lake but take only 80 percent of the water, leaving the rest for locals, Mr. Ratliff said. "That 20 percent is more water than all the lakes in northeast Texas," he said. "That is a hell of a deal."
North Texas water planners agree, but Terrace Stewart, director of Dallas Water Utilities and chairman of the North Texas water planning group, said it won't be done without extensive studies and public input – and not at all if economic, environmental or political costs are too great. Until
those are figured, he said, no one will commit to build anything.
"We're obviously very concerned" with local ire, Mr. Stewart said. "We would bear in mind the impact to that area. We don't want to harm those people."
The reservoir itself would cover about 72,000 acres of river, bottomland and timber. Environmental mitigation – set-asides required to make up for habitat destruction – might take another 200,000 acres out of commercial use. That has pushed loggers into a rare alliance with environmentalists. Mr. Ratliff said he's advising loggers to get Congress to delete the mitigation requirement.
Environmentalists say that won't happen, and many loggers say they're not interested. They want the lake killed – a notion with growing support, judging from the turnout at meetings of the state-appointed northeast Texas regional water planners.
The number of protesters swells each time, even though the group meets during weekday work hours. "Hey Dallas – turn off your damn sprinklers," read a sign posted at the most recent session.
Emotions run high when people talk about water rising over their old family places. "Our sweat and blood are in the land," said Nina Holt of Cuthand, a crossroads community in Red River County. "The Lord gives us rain. But he's already created as much land as he's going to create."
Lindy Guest of Bogota buried his young son at Cuthand 10 years ago. He and others bristle at the idea of moving loved ones' graves.
"This is sort of taking the heart out of the land," Mr. Guest said. "The politicians that are with us now, after this election coming up, I hope they don't change their minds back."
If the northeast Texas water planning group, one of 16 set up under the state's 1997 water planning law, rescinds its support for Marvin Nichols, the political fallout might be significant, but the legal effect would be nil, said Texas Water Development Board spokeswoman Carla Daws.
That's because the northeast Texas group calls Marvin Nichols a "recommendation," while the urban North Texas group calls it a needed "water management strategy." That seemingly tiny twist, Ms. Daws said, means northeast Texas can't veto the lake.
"If they change their plan to remove that expression of support, there's no change in the other region's plan," she said.
1997 water law
Mr. Stewart, the Dallas water chief, agreed. "They can amend their plan however they wish, but that would have no effect on other entities wishing to develop that resource," he said. If that's true, said Norman Johns, a water resources scientist with the National Wildlife Federation, then the 1997 state water law's promises of locally driven, bottom-up planning were hollow.
"It was much ballyhooed as that," he said. "Now the grass roots has spoken, but you've got a bureaucracy that says that doesn't matter." He called Marvin Nichols a "72,000-acre loophole."
Mr. Ratliff said the deal he brokered to get the 1997 law passed anticipated that the north and northeast Texas plans would be "mutually approved." That was done with building Marvin Nichols in mind, he said, because northeast Texas is a special case in otherwise dusty Texas.
"In most of the other parts of the state, the question is how you can allocate scarce resources," he said. "The thing that makes this unique is that there is an abundance of water – billions and billions of gallons."
But not a drop, vowed Robert L. Canfield of Red River County, will leave the Sulphur River.
"We didn't come down here to beg that the lake be removed from the agenda," Mr. Canfield grumbled. "We came down here to say there isn't going to be one."
article 3
September 10, 2001
NWF and Texas Residents Oppose Damaging Dam and Reservoir
The National Wildlife Federation is organizing local residents in Northeast Texas in a grassroots effort to promote conservation and oppose construction of the $1.7 billion Marvin Nichols dam and reservoir.
The state of Texas is facing many water challenges, and as a result, the state has undergone a lengthy water planning process. During this process, planning groups study population growth, water use and demand, and how to best use Texas' limited available fresh water. Also, the plan must consider conservation of water resources and protection of wildlife. This project, the Marvin Nichols dam and reservoir, is the most costly project proposed in the state's plan.
Marvin Nichols has been recommended by regional water planning groups and the Texas Water Development Board in its 50-year plan to provide for the municipal water needs of the Dallas Metroplex. The project will remove 161 billion gallons of water per year from Northeast Texas and ship it via 172-miles of pipeline to the Dallas/Ft.Worth area. The pipeline, according to the Dallas Morning News, is large enough to accommodate a Ford Explorer. This dam, on the Sulphur River, would bury 72,000 acres of rural Texas, including productive farms, family businesses, and ranches.
"This is a battle over the control of water. This is water that Dallas and Ft. Worth want to import at the expense of rural Texans," said Dave Moldal, NWF Regional Organizer in Austin. "In building Marvin Nichols, 30,000 acres of high-quality rare bottomland hardwood forest and 15,000 acres of mixed post-oak forest will be destroyed. This bottomland provides essential habitat to a wide variety of game and non-game wildlife species. In addition, any time the natural flow of a river is diverted, it affects fish and wildlife habitat downstream."
"I don't see the need to put property that's used for farming, logging, hunting and fishing under water just so folks in Dallas can water their
lawns," said Max Shumake, Dekalb, Texas, a landowner and citizen leader.
NWF and other groups say the project is a waste of taxpayer dollars and would be calamitous to migratory birds, native mussels, wild turkey,
white-tailed deer, and the forest habitat that wildlife need to survive. If Dallas and other regional communities would simply lower their water usage rates approximately 25 percent over the next 50 years, which would still put them far above the state average, the National Wildlife Federation contends the need for Marvin Nichols would be eliminated.
"Dallas/Ft. Worth water users consume far and away more water than any other city in the state of Texas. There are no incentives for citizens to
conserve, no organized plan for conservation, or conservation initiatives by the water utilities," said Janice Bezanson, Executive Director of the Texas Committee on Natural Resources (TCONR), NWF's state affiliate.
This summer, NWF and TCONR organized three citizens' meetings about the threats of this project - threats not only to their land and livelihoods, but to wildlife and wildlife habitat that would be permanently lost. These residents are contacting their elected officials, and preparing for public hearings this fall.
The Shumake family, who owns hundreds of acres of bottomlands, is worried his neighbors that depend on the land will be flooded out by the
construction of Marvin Nichols. "Heck, some of these families have been here since the Alamo. Stopping this dam is our Alamo."
NE Texas to Dallas: Don't take water
09/16/2002
By RANDY LEE LOFTIS / The Dallas Morning News
GILMER, Texas – If you want to start a scrape around here, try saying this cussword: Dallas.
"I think we ought to be able to go over to Dallas and buy it for whatever we think it's worth," declared Robert Lewis, who lives in northeast Texas' Red River County but is spending a lot of time these days fuming about the big city to the west. "Because that's what they're doing to our land."
Wood County resident Don Hightower concurred. "From what I've read, there's enough water running through the storm drains and off the lawns of Dallas to supply the needs of Tyler and Longview," he said. "I think the city of Dallas needs a wakeup call for its wasteful tactics."
Many of the 300 at a recent northeast Texas water planning meeting in Gilmer's civic center shouted approval. Dozens trooped to the microphone to add their amens. Most wore Day-Glo stickers urging, "Don't let Dallas [hog] our water."
Dallas' troubles in the northeast Texas piney woods might go deeper than its image. The $1.7 billion Marvin Nichols reservoir that the city and its neighbors want for a future water supply – a sprawling dam and lake proposed along the quiet, isolated Sulphur River – has stirred a grass-roots revolt of loggers, truckers and fourth-generation ranchers. Even the project's name comes from outside the northeast Texas area: Marvin Nichols was a Fort Worth water planner who served as the first chairman of the Texas Water Development Board.
Opponents say urban North Texas must curb its water use – the highest per person in Texas – before it dams a distant river. "I was born in Dallas, but I don't feel like I owe them a thing," said Red River County resident Mark Evans. "They waste lots of water."
At 18, Mr. Evans is a booted, cowboy-hat-wearing, brand-new voter – and with elections coming, some local politicians are whipping up rough waters for a project that had seen smooth sailing.
U.S. Rep. Max Sandlin, D-Marshall, and four Texas House members have signed a letter saying the only local consensus they detect is against it. Next week, regional water planners are expected to consider rescinding support for the plan. Even if state water officials are right in calling that just a symbolic move, Gov. Rick Perry warns Dallas that Marvin Nichols is no longer a sure bet.
"It appears to me that if Dallas solely relies upon the building of Marvin Nichols, they could miscalculate," the Republican governor said in an interview.
"We know how long it takes to build a reservoir," he said. "There's no guarantee that, with [the] environmental impact that this could have on the state of Texas, that it couldn't stay in the courthouse for decades. I want to make sure that Dallas has an appropriate supply of water, and I
think we need to be looking at other alternatives to Marvin Nichols."
Those, he said, could include water from Oklahoma, Louisiana or elsewhere in Texas – but they must include clamping down on residents' water use. "Dallas has got to do a better job of water conservation," Mr. Perry said.
Local control endorsed
Tony Sanchez, Mr. Perry's Democratic challenger, said he doesn't know details of the project or the fight. But he said he also endorses conservation – and thinks one region shouldn't be able to take another's water. "I don't want to take local control of water away from people," Mr. Sanchez said.
Such warnings might raise questions about political support for Marvin Nichols, which is still in the earliest planning stages and wouldn't supply water before 2030. But another veteran Texas politician said he thinks all the protests are for naught.
"In my opinion, the reservoir will be built," said state Sen. Bill Ratliff, whose northeast Texas district includes the potential lake site and surrounding areas. The Republican from Mount Pleasant is also serving temporarily as Texas' lieutenant governor.
Marvin Nichols will be built, Mr. Ratliff said, because urban North Texas – sprawling, populous and becoming more so, with big-city political muscle in Austin and Washington that trumps small-town northeast Texas – wants it.
"The question is whether it will be built by a local entity, with water sold [to North Texas utilities] under contract, or whether the Dallas-Fort Worth entities just go get the permits and build the thing themselves," Mr. Ratliff said. "We'd be waging a big battle with a small stick if we
tried to stop a project like that."
Not that he wants to. North Texas water systems would pay to build, finance and operate the dam and lake but take only 80 percent of the water, leaving the rest for locals, Mr. Ratliff said. "That 20 percent is more water than all the lakes in northeast Texas," he said. "That is a hell of a deal."
North Texas water planners agree, but Terrace Stewart, director of Dallas Water Utilities and chairman of the North Texas water planning group, said it won't be done without extensive studies and public input – and not at all if economic, environmental or political costs are too great. Until
those are figured, he said, no one will commit to build anything.
"We're obviously very concerned" with local ire, Mr. Stewart said. "We would bear in mind the impact to that area. We don't want to harm those people."
The reservoir itself would cover about 72,000 acres of river, bottomland and timber. Environmental mitigation – set-asides required to make up for habitat destruction – might take another 200,000 acres out of commercial use. That has pushed loggers into a rare alliance with environmentalists. Mr. Ratliff said he's advising loggers to get Congress to delete the mitigation requirement.
Environmentalists say that won't happen, and many loggers say they're not interested. They want the lake killed – a notion with growing support, judging from the turnout at meetings of the state-appointed northeast Texas regional water planners.
The number of protesters swells each time, even though the group meets during weekday work hours. "Hey Dallas – turn off your damn sprinklers," read a sign posted at the most recent session.
Emotions run high when people talk about water rising over their old family places. "Our sweat and blood are in the land," said Nina Holt of Cuthand, a crossroads community in Red River County. "The Lord gives us rain. But he's already created as much land as he's going to create."
Lindy Guest of Bogota buried his young son at Cuthand 10 years ago. He and others bristle at the idea of moving loved ones' graves.
"This is sort of taking the heart out of the land," Mr. Guest said. "The politicians that are with us now, after this election coming up, I hope they don't change their minds back."
If the northeast Texas water planning group, one of 16 set up under the state's 1997 water planning law, rescinds its support for Marvin Nichols, the political fallout might be significant, but the legal effect would be nil, said Texas Water Development Board spokeswoman Carla Daws.
That's because the northeast Texas group calls Marvin Nichols a "recommendation," while the urban North Texas group calls it a needed "water management strategy." That seemingly tiny twist, Ms. Daws said, means northeast Texas can't veto the lake.
"If they change their plan to remove that expression of support, there's no change in the other region's plan," she said.
1997 water law
Mr. Stewart, the Dallas water chief, agreed. "They can amend their plan however they wish, but that would have no effect on other entities wishing to develop that resource," he said. If that's true, said Norman Johns, a water resources scientist with the National Wildlife Federation, then the 1997 state water law's promises of locally driven, bottom-up planning were hollow.
"It was much ballyhooed as that," he said. "Now the grass roots has spoken, but you've got a bureaucracy that says that doesn't matter." He called Marvin Nichols a "72,000-acre loophole."
Mr. Ratliff said the deal he brokered to get the 1997 law passed anticipated that the north and northeast Texas plans would be "mutually approved." That was done with building Marvin Nichols in mind, he said, because northeast Texas is a special case in otherwise dusty Texas.
"In most of the other parts of the state, the question is how you can allocate scarce resources," he said. "The thing that makes this unique is that there is an abundance of water – billions and billions of gallons."
But not a drop, vowed Robert L. Canfield of Red River County, will leave the Sulphur River.
"We didn't come down here to beg that the lake be removed from the agenda," Mr. Canfield grumbled. "We came down here to say there isn't going to be one."
article 3
It may be worth some time (if you have any to spare) to keep an eye out for SQ skulls, jaw bones or native indian artifacts that may be uncovered by the earth movers
I like the sign "turn off the damn sprinklers" .In the area I live and the Tampa/St.Petersburg area to the north most of the summer in spent in water conservation mode.When I was stationed in Okinawa we were only allowed water every three days on base for conservation purposes.Thanks for the articles Craig.I don't live there but I also don't agree that if the plan goes forward it should be against the wishes of those it would probably impact the most.
Humans have been fighting over water rights since day one.
It will eventually cause California to split into a North and a South.
So I've got both a blue and a gray pair of Birkenstock's in case I end up on the border...
It will eventually cause California to split into a North and a South.
So I've got both a blue and a gray pair of Birkenstock's in case I end up on the border...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.