   |
 |
|
|
| ||||||||||
|
About Us | | Water Planning | |
Groundwater | |
Conservation | |
Environmental Flows | |
Drought Mgmt. | |
Resources | |
Search | | Home | |
| ||||||||||
|
|
Reservoirs or Conservation? We don't have to dam all of the rivers and flood all of the property called for in the State Water Plan in order to supply water to big cities. We can meet most of the water needs of a growing urban population by using existing water supplies more efficiently.
Building Dams and Pipelines is a Common Strategy in the State Water Plan The eight major reservoirs proposed in the State Water Plan are primarily located in East Texas. Proposed pipelines and diversions are spread throughout the state to move water to urban areas. Conservation Could Avoid the Need for Dams and Reservoirs A study conducted by the National Wildlife Federation found that Texas could save 1,047,885 acre-feet of water per year (an acre-foot is equal to 326,000 gallons) through municipal conservation if cities would commit to reducing water use as El Paso and San Antonio are doing. Compare those savings to the 1,116,050 acre-feet of water supply that would be provided by all eight proposed major reservoirs combined. View the study to learn specifics on the potential of municipal water conservation in Texas. The proposed massive Marvin Nichols dam provides a prime example of the unnecessary reliance on new reservoirs and pipelines instead of water conservation. Flooding over 70,000 acres on the Sulphur River in rural Northeast Texas this would be one of the largest reservoir projects in Texas' history. Eighty percent (161.4 billion gallons per year) of this project's water would be piped roughly 170 miles to Dallas, Fort Worth, and other North Texas cities.  Cities in the Dallas / Ft. Worth area have the highest water use rates in the state. In fact, the City of Dallas is the only major city in Texas projecting that per-person water use will increase, instead of decrease, in the next fifty years. The National Wildlife Federation has found that the City of Dallas could totally eliminate its need for water from Marvin Nichols and continue to grow in population if it decreased its per person water use by 24% over the next 50 years. This may seem like a large reduction, but keep in mind that San Antonio decreased its water use by 30% in 17 years and El Paso decreased its water use by 30% in 20 years.According to a statewide poll, Texans prefer (by a two-to-one margin) that cities' future water supply needs be met by adopting new water conservation measures rather than through the building of new dams and pipelines. In addition, the poll found that nearly 75% of Texans would be willing to participate in various water conservation measures. Visit our section on Water Conservation to learn more. Conservation Saves Money Increased water conservation would not only avoid much of the destruction that would be caused by building new reservoirs and diversion projects, but would also save taxpayers' dollars. A recent Texas Water Development Board study shows that conservation is almost always a cheaper way to meet water demands than reservoirs and pipelines. For example, the total cost of water from the Marvin Nichols reservoir, including treatment and pipeline transport to the Dallas / Ft. Worth area, would run somewhere between $600 and $700 per acre-foot. Compare this cost to municipal water conservation programs that range from $400-$575 per acre-foot and it becomes obvious which water supply strategy is more fiscally responsible. Dams and Pipelines Can Be Very Destructive New dams can cause lots of damage, both to fish and wildlife and to local economies and landowners. For instance, the construction of Marvin Nichols Reservoir would cost the local area a substantial portion of its tax base, economic activity, and local culture as well as valuable natural resources - these costs are not sufficiently measured in the State Water Plan although they are just as tangible as the "price" of the project. The filling of the reservoir would destroy over 72,000 acres of farms, ranches, and forest (30,000 acres of rare bottomland hardwood forest and another 42,000 acres of mixed forests and family farms and ranches along the Sulphur River). The environmental consequences of constructing new reservoirs and pipelines include alteration of the natural flow of the river and a substantial loss of wildlife habitat in the surrounding area. Statewide, the amount of forested river and creek floodplain vegetation has declined from an estimated 16 million acres to 5.9 million acres. This diminishing vegetation includes a particularly high value wildlife habitat called bottomland hardwoods, and much of the loss is due to existing dams. The Sulphur River reach threatened by the Marvin Nichols dam contains some of the state's last remaining prime bottomland hardwood forest, home to several threatened or endangered species. Consequently, the construction of Marvin Nichols would have statewide implications for wildlife habitat. Visit our section on Environmental Flows to learn more about the impact that reservoirs and pipelines have on rivers and wildlife. There are also economic and cultural costs to building a reservoir. For instance, Marvin Nichols would eliminate many jobs in farming, ranching, logging, and livestock because so much working land would be flooded by the reservoir. The people who provide goods and services for the jobs that would be lost, such as feed and seed stores, and farm and tractor supply stores also would be harmed. In addition, the reservoir would flood several family cemeteries and historic Native American sites. It's difficult to put a price tag on cultural heritage and local history, but these surely carry a high value to residents in the region.
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Conservation
