Texas Put Billions on the Table for Water
Now the Real Work Begins
Hi friends,
Many of you know that water issues are growing. AI data centers and CO2 pipelines are the latest culprits, but for decades the importance of water has not been taken as seriously as it should have been.
The article below is an update now that the ‘Plans’ have been made official.
Until about 7 months ago, I was completely unaware of an imminent water shortage. About that time I learned of the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir in east Texas. I learned that unelected water boards and some businesses have authority to take land (Texas Property Code § 21.012) (by eminent domain), in this case 66,000 acres, the largest proposed reservoir land seizure in Texas. On that land are farms, ranches, communities, businesses, timber, wildlife, wetlands, cemeteries, school grounds, and more. About thirteen counties in east Texas are at risk. Because the area is mostly rural. So where is food to be grown, cattle to be raised when all the rural land is taken?
And to add insult to injury, there would have to be at least another 66,000 acres taken for ‘mitigation’. Nobody has ever accused any governmental entity of common sense or logic.
For more information on land and water issues, see Property Rights and Freedom. All previous articles are in the archive.
So, last November, Texans, by voting for a Constitutional amendment, took a step toward securing the state’s water future.
By approving Proposition 4, voters allowed up to $1 billion a year for the next 20 years to water infrastructure, conservation, and planning. That’s potentially $20 billion — the largest long-term water investment Texas has ever made.
For a state that understands drought, population growth, and aging infrastructure, this was a long-overdue move. It signaled a shift away from too-slow crisis management toward long-range planning — and that deserves some recognition. (See my opinion at the end of this article.)
Passing the funding was only the beginning.
Because while the money is now secured, how Texas prioritizes and sequences that spending will shape water policy for decades or longer.
In January 2026, the Texas Water Development Board approved the 2026 Regional Water Plans, the official blueprints that will feed directly into the next State Water Plan. These documents identify projected water needs, list specific strategies, estimate costs, and assign timelines that stretch out to 2070 and beyond.
In other words, the menu is now largely set.
What remains unresolved — and increasingly important — is what comes first.
The newly approved plans reveal just how expensive future water strategies have become. Board discussions and reporting show that some individual projects now carry price tags approaching $10 billion. Many of the easiest and least costly water sources are already in use, meaning future supplies will require greater investment and more difficult tradeoffs.
That reality makes prioritization critical.
Proposition 4 created a broad Texas Water Fund, overseen by the (unelected) Texas Water Development Board, that can support everything from new water supplies to conservation, reuse, infrastructure repair, flood mitigation, and scientific studies. This flexibility was intentional, recognizing that water challenges vary across the state.
At the same time, broad eligibility means judgment matters more than ever.
Some of the most effective water solutions don’t involve massive construction at all. Repairing leaking pipes, upgrading aging systems, improving efficiency, and expanding reuse can save enormous amounts of water — often at far lower cost and without permanently altering land or communities.
They don’t come with dramatic maps or decades-long legacies. These projects require taking remedial action.
On the other end of the spectrum are large infrastructure proposals — reservoirs, pipelines, and conveyance systems — that reshape landscapes and lock in assumptions for generations. These projects may be necessary in some cases, but they also carry permanent consequences.
That tension is now clearly visible across America, including in Northeast Texas.
The long-debated Marvin Nichols Reservoir remains listed in the approved plans, but with a critical change: its projected timeline has been pushed out to around 2070, and alternatives such as Toledo Bend now appear alongside it. (Will the authorities move it forward again?)
This shift doesn’t remove Marvin Nichols from the books. But it does change its current standing.
When a project is delayed for decades, paired with alternatives, and assigned a multibillion-dollar cost, the central question is no longer whether it exists on paper — it’s when it next rises to the level of administrative attention.
For years, projects like Marvin Nichols were treated as defaults, largely because it (and others) has already been ‘on the books’ for 50 years. Proposition 4 changes that equation. Texas now has the financial capacity to compare options and make better decisions— conservation, reuse, transfers, desalination, infrastructure repair — slowing traditional supply strategies.
The approved regional plans reflect a more complex and realistic picture of Texas’ water future, one where no single solution stands alone and where cost, impact, and timing must be weighed together.
This is precisely the moment when public engagement matters most.
Once projects move from planning documents into funded construction, decisions become far harder to revisit. But right now, Texas is in a transition phase — moving from listing projects to deciding which ones actually move forward first.
That decision won’t be shaped by funding alone. It will be influenced by priorities, transparency, and whether citizens continue to ask important questions:
Are we fixing what we already have?
Are we conserving before expanding?
Are alternatives being fully evaluated before land is taken?
Are rural communities weighed fairly alongside growing metropolitan areas?
Texans may have taken an important step forward on water. The funding exists. The plans are approved. The opportunity is real.
A personal note — why citizen oversight is critical
While this progress is encouraging, experience teaches an important lesson: government rarely spends money as carefully as individuals spend their own.
Large budgets, complex agencies, and layered bureaucracy commonly lead to inefficiency, waste, and decisions driven by other factors than wisdom. Even well-intended programs can drift without steady oversight — especially when the dollars involved are measured in billions.
That doesn’t mean the effort is wrong. It means citizens cannot relax and assume the best outcome will simply happen.
These funds belong to the public. The land affected belongs to families. The consequences will last for generations.
This is the moment when engagement matters most — similar to when you hire a contractor to renovate your home. When government is spending someone else’s money, informed citizens must serve as the final safeguard.
If done well, progress will be real.
But progress paired with vigilance is what protects the future.
Sources / References
Texas Water Development Board – Texas Water Fund
https://www.twdb.texas.gov/financial/programs/twf/index.asp
HJR 7 (89th Texas Legislature)
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HJR7/id/3233045
Texas Scorecard – State Officials Approve Costly New Regional Water Plans
https://texasscorecard.com/state/state-officials-approve-costly-new-regional-water-plans/
TWDB Board Memo (2026 Regional Water Plans Approval)
https://texasscorecard.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/twdb06.pdf
As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.
White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land
United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.
VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html
Disclaimer:
As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.
No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.
While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.
If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.
Until next time…
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?
Some housekeeping…
Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.
You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.
Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!