Frequently Asked Questions

It was a victory, but there's still more to do. The Northeast Texas Regional Water Planning Group (NETRWPG - Region D) unanimously voted to remove the Grand Saline Creek Reservoir from the 2026 Region D Water Plan and to send a letter to the TCEQ recommending denial of Canton’s water rights application due to misleading information and manipulated data. These wins mark significant progress in protecting local land and livelihoods; however, the permit application has not been withdrawn from TCEQ, and it is still an active application.

Canton’s claim that “no homes will be harmed” is misleading, based on an outdated 2017 map in their TCEQ application that underrepresents affected properties. Many homes, including those of over 140 landowners, are within or near the proposed floodplain, contradicting claims of no impact. The map fails to account for recent development, has omitted existing homeowners, and inaccurately places homes at the floodplain’s edge, risking displacement and property loss.

Canton’s own water rights application, outlines plans to use eminent domain to acquire land for the Grand Saline Creek Reservoir, prioritizing speculative future water needs over the rights of the community's current residents. (as detailed in Attachment E of their TCEQ filing) Proposed legislation, such as House Bill 162 by Rep. Brent Money and Senate Bill 27 by Sen. Bob Hall, aims to prohibit this type of government overreach via eminent domain, reinforcing the coalition’s stance against this misuse of power.

The Sabine River Authority's amended Certificate of Adjudication No. 05-4658B (issued August 23, 2019, priority date May 15, 2003) is key, but not because the Sabine River Authority will own the water. Under a specific provision, the Sabine River Authority's water rights are subordinate (secondary) to certain upstream municipal water rights on Sabine River tributaries (i.e. Grand Saline Creek) if those rights have a permitted firm yield of less than 4,000 acre-feet per year. By requesting exactly 3,950 acre-feet per year (just under the 4,000 threshold), Canton's application qualifies for this provision, giving their rights priority over the Sabine River Authority's in scenarios like water shortages. If approved, Canton would hold and control these usage rights, leveraging this provision to their benefit.

Canton’s repeated claims that it could become “the next Forney” are neither feasible nor desirable. Forney’s rapid growth (from 5,588 in 2000 to over 27,000 by 2020) was driven by its proximity to Dallas and major highways, unlike Canton’s rural setting with limited infrastructure and 1.2% annual growth. Pursuing such growth would strain Canton’s resources, increase costs for taxpayers, and justify unnecessary land acquisition via eminent domain, harming Van Zandt County’s rural communities and agricultural heritage. The best way to answer this question is to ask the people of Forney who lived through the growth, as well as the ones dealing with the fall-out now.

Not necessarily. Canton’s application relies on a 2004 Comprehensive Plan projecting a population of over 34,000, a speculative estimate based on filling their extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) with houses, unsupported by actual growth data. With a current population below 5,000 and a 1.1% annual growth rate over the past two decades, Canton’s existing water sources (1.5 million gallons daily) can support up to 10,000 residents for decades. These exaggerated projections inflate the need for the reservoir, ignoring recommended alternatives like purchasing water, reclamation and conservation efforts, and water recycling.

Yes. The area affected by the proposed Grand Saline Creek Reservoir has already experienced significant property tax devaluation in 2025, with an estimated $1 million in revenue lost due to dropping property values. The project’s speculative impact, even before construction, underscores the need to oppose the reservoir to protect homeowners’ equity and community resources.

No. Canton’s claim of support from multiple cities is misleading, based on outdated 2010 resolutions from Edgewood, Wills Point, and Grand Saline that were rescinded and not reaffirmed. The Van Zandt County Commissioners Court also passed a resolution on August 5, 2025, opposing the project if it involves eminent domain, and pushed for better solutions. Senator Bob Hall and Representative Brent Money have been actively monitoring our situation and are advocating for legislation (House Bill 162 and Senate Bill 27) to end cities’ ability to use eminent domain outside their jurisdictions. Grand Saline ISD, led by Superintendent Micah Lewis, also opposes the project due to its impact on taxpayers and school funding. The Van Zandt County Farm Bureau voted unanimously against the reservoir and water rights claim, to preserve farmland and rural livelihoods. The Northeast Texas Regional Water Planning Group (Region D) also unanimously rejected the reservoir on August 13, 2025, due to misleading data in Canton’s TCEQ application.

Yes, Canton's documents reveal plans for recreation and economic benefits beyond water needs. Recreational opportunities like pleasure boating, water skiing, fishing, and swimming, as well as economic gains from selling water wholesale to other communities and attracting water-intensive industries like power plants and poultry processing, are clearly listed in the March 14, 2019 "Grand Saline Creek Reservoir Fatal Flaw Report", prepared by CP&Y, Inc. These plans, alongside an “economic development” clause in Attachment E of the TCEQ application, suggest potential profiteering, vs water needs.

The proposed Grand Saline Creek Reservoir would require abandoning three water crossings on County Road (CR) 1222, two on CR 1211, and portions of CR 1213 and 1219, disrupting public and private roads, bridges, and drainage systems. These closures would severely impact remaining residents’ daily travel, access to properties, and emergency services. Farmers, delivery drivers, and businesses relying on these roads for transport would face delays and detours, increasing costs and isolation. The loss of drainage infrastructure could exacerbate flooding risks, further threatening community safety and livelihoods.

No, Mill Creek was. Canton’s 2008 Long Term Water Study stated "A total of five alternative reservoir sites, all within a seven-mile radius of Canton, were initially identified... Three optional dam sites on Grand Saline Creek were investigated and eliminated from further consideration based on excessive relocation costs for gas wells and pipelines". (page 7) This left Mill Creek and Kickapoo Creek. Mill Creek projections showed higher flow rates, and had a better availability of water rights. The report stated "Based on these primary considerations of expected reservoir water levels and water rights availability, the Mill Creek site is considered the preferred dam site and was further examined for purposes of determining expected development costs" (page 8) In 2017, the City of Canton hired a new firm, Johnson and Pace, Inc.to perform a new study that only focused on the Grand Saline Creek reservoir. On page one of that report it references the 2009, Gary Burton Engineering Study, stating "A reservoir on the Grand Saline Creek was determined to be a potential option due to its proximity to the City of Canton and its large watershed." An untruth, that allowed this report to completely ignore the recommended Mill Creek option and focus solely on Grand Saline Creek for Canton's lake.

While there are no known issues with constructing a reservoir within 2-5 miles of a salt dome, the proposed Grand Saline Creek Reservoir, upstream of Morton Salt and the Grand Saline salt dome, raises concerns about downstream impacts, map inaccuracies, and mismanaged water projects. The 2017 map submitted with Canton’s TCEQ application has drawn substantial criticism for underrepresenting the number of affected properties and inaccurately identifying the dam location and floodplain’s edge. This misrepresentation of the reservoir’s boundaries further complicates efforts to accurately determine the proximity of the salt dome’s edge to the main water body. Such imprecision obstructs verification processes and heightens concerns regarding the project’s potential environmental and hydrological impacts. Downstream, the reservoir could increase salinity in the Sabine River by reducing creek flow, potentially degrading water quality for agriculture and drinking, or destabilize the salt dome’s cap rock, risking groundwater contamination, as seen in Louisiana’s Sulphur Mines salt dome emergency in 2023. The 1980 Lake Peigneur disaster in Louisiana—where a drilling error into a salt mine caused a sinkhole, transforming a 10-foot-deep freshwater lake into a 200-foot-deep brackish lake costing $45 million—highlights risks of water-salt interactions. California’s Salton Sea, accidentally formed in 1905 by an irrigation canal breach, has become a brackish lake saltier than the ocean, shrinking and creating a public health crisis due to toxic dust from its exposed lakebed, illustrating the environmental and health risks of poorly planned / mismanaged water projects.

It's unlikely. Lithium extraction typically targets brines directly at or near salt domes, where concentrations are highest, rather than upstream reservoirs. However, drilling or reservoir operations near the salt dome could exacerbate contamination risks, especially if brine migration is induced, threatening local agriculture and Morton Salt’s operations, which rely on stable groundwater conditions. Reservoir-induced flow changes could concentrate salts or lithium in the Sabine River, degrading water quality for agriculture or drinking, or mobilize toxic metals like boron, as seen in other lithium brine projects. Drilling for lithium could risk groundwater contamination in aquifers like the Carrizo-Wilcox, especially if reservoir pressure alters brine dynamics, as seen in Louisiana’s Sulphur Mines salt dome emergency in 2023. California’s Salton Sea, with its 18-million-ton lithium deposit—consumes billions of gallons of water annually for lithium extraction from brines and accelerates environmental degradation—offering a cautionary tale. While Canton's project’s 5,600-acre footprint is smaller, the principle of water-intensive brine processing could strain local resources, particularly if lithium becomes a secondary goal. These risks are speculative without specific studies. Public awareness and independent environmental assessments are critical to determine whether lithium extraction could become an unintended consequence, especially given the global rush for domestic lithium sources amid EV battery demand.

Bois d’Arc Lake, a 16,641-acre reservoir in Fannin County completed in 2021, serves as a cautionary tale due to its significant impacts on land prices, communities, and the environment. Before construction, land in the flood zone faced devaluation due to eminent domain fears and flood risk designations, with some landowners clear-cutting timber to offset low sale prices. Post-construction, lakefront properties have surged in value, with parcels like a 15-acre lot listed at $895,000 and limited lakefront lots marketed as “sought-after real estate,” all much higher than pre-lake values. This benefits few, while the flooding of thousands of acres of farmland, displacement of residents, and ecosystem disruption mirrors the threats to Van Zandt County. (CP&Y, Inc. were one of the engineers that worked on the project.) High construction costs ($1.6 billion) and ongoing maintenance challenges, coupled with no guaranteed water security due to evaporation and drought, highlight the risks of such projects.

Alternatives include purchasing water from nearby sources, drilling more wells, implementing conservation efforts (e.g., low-flow fixtures for hotel /multi-family construction, drought-tolerant landscaping), water recycling, and innovative technologies like managed aquifer recharge, which injects treated water to replenish groundwater, offsetting deficits by up to 10% in some regions. These solutions could meet or exceed Canton’s future water needs without flooding Van Zandt County or acquiring land via eminent domain.