Eco-Activists Oppose State
Plan To Boost Water Supplies

AUSTIN —(AP)— A proposed $17 billion statewide water plan to meet Texas' needs over the next 50 years is a taxpayer ``boondoggle'' that could be better addressed by stricter conservation instead of new reservoirs, environmental activists claimed late last week.

The Texas Water Development Board is considering the proposed plan that would build up to eight new major reservoirs, new pipelines and other water projects to meet the state's needs well into the new century.

The board held a public hearing on the plan Thursday and heard from environmental groups and landowners who oppose it. The final plan is expected to be in place by January.

The current proposal isn't strong enough on conservation and would create environmental damage with some of its building proposals, said Erin Rogers of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. Conservation would include tighter restrictions on lawn watering and low-flow toilets in homes, she said.

``We do not need these massive concrete and steel projects,'' Rogers said. ``Texas voters deserve to know more about the statewide water plan and boondoggle projects. It's time to get serious about conservation.''

The statewide water plan was drafted from 16 regional plans. Officials predict Texas' population will nearly double to about 40 million by 2050, creating a need for new ways for Texans to get water. Most of the growth will be in the suburbs of the state's major cities.

Total water demand is expected to increase about 18 percent. How the water is used will also change. Irrigation, which accounts for about 57 percent of water use now, is expected to drop and municipal and industrial water use is expected to surpass agricultural demand.

Among the projects criticized Thursday was the proposed Marvin Nichols I dam and reservoir on the Sulphur River in Northeast Texas. The estimated $1.7 million project would flood about 72,000 acres to transfer 161 billion gallons of water every year to the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area, according to the National Wildlife Federation.

Max Shumake of Dekalb said his family would lose about 800 acres of land that would be flooded, including the $10,000 annually his sisters earn from hunting leases on the property.

``I know we have to provide water for humankind, and if people were starving to death for water, that'd be one thing,'' he said. ``But they're doing nothing to conserve right now.''

Craig Pederson, executive director of the water board, said conservation alone won't solve potential shortages in the Dallas and Fort Worth areas.

``Clearly, some of the communities in that area can be more aggressive on conservation. But it's unrealistic to think that growth can be accommodated without an additional water supply,'' Pederson said.

``We've got a lot of people raising issues rather late in the process. You cannot just say we're going to conserve and use rain water and that's it.''

He also said state environmental officials have been consulted on major projects to balance disruption of stream flows and potential damage to estuaries.

Voters were to decide this next week whether to approve Proposition 19, a constitutional amendment to allow the water development board to issue up to $2 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wastewater and flood control projects. The Sierra Club opposes that plan also, which Rogers said would serve as a ``down payment'' on the long-term proposal.

Pederson, however, said that money is vital to helping smaller communities with projects such as wells, wastewater treatment and flood control.