Texas reviewed the Marvin Nichols Reservoir and thinks it’s good to go. What do you think?

Enthusiasts and skeptics will have another chance to share their thoughts on the potential construction of a 66,000-acre lake 150 miles east of the Metroplex on Monday.

North Texas water planners first conceived of the Marvin Nichols Reservoir in the late 1960s. Tensions surrounding its future intensified in the 2000s, as Dallas-Fort Worth’s surging population laid bare the long-term inadequacies of its water supply.

State officials extol the project as a sensible and formidable solution to future supply shortages. The Texas Legislature in 2007 deemed it a “site of unique value for the construction of a reservoir,” given the ample surface water provided by the Sulfur River basin and the comparatively low estimated costs of shipping the water to consumers.

Completing the $4.5 billion undertaking would require flooding more than 100 square miles of forest and wetland near Cuthand, an entrenched and tight-knit ranching community of roughly 300.

Residents and state nature conservationists view Marvin Nichols as a needlessly destructive boondoggle, designed not to meet the region’s basic needs but to feed the gluttony of water-hungry lawns in sprawling suburban subdivisions. Any potential benefits, they reason, wouldn’t be worth the costs: drowning a diverse and vibrant ecosystem and disrupting the livelihoods of locals.

The opposition compelled lawmakers to require the Texas Water Development Board to conduct a “feasibility review” of the project before pushing it forward.

The agency published its preliminary findings this month and painted an unequivocal picture: North Texas needs Marvin Nichols, and there are no insurmountable barriers — financial, logistical, or ecological — that make its completion infeasible.

The board’s North Texas planning body — Region C — will convene at 1 p.m. Monday at the North Central Texas Council of Governments, 616 Six Flags Drive, in Arlington to discuss the reservoir, the study, and what opposition remains. Members of the public will be given time to vent their concerns or or share their content.