# Lake Buchanan Expecting Big Rise



## smokinguntoo (Mar 28, 2012)

Son follows Texas Storm Chasers and he said they are predicting a significant (maybe 30 foot) rise in the water level over the next few days. I went to texasstormchasers.com, but I don't see the article he is following. Can any 2coolers confirm that news? That is a LOT of water. Bodes well for all of the highland lakes.

SG2


----------



## PiratesRun (Jun 23, 2004)

Currently 54% full and 20 feet below conservation pool so that is great news. Any overflow will then help Travis which is at 87%. There was a big rain yesterday up around Abilene.


----------



## Comeback (Jul 30, 2010)

Water moving down the Colorado.

http://www.keyetv.com/news/features...nan-afd-assist-brownwood-flooding-26972.shtml


----------



## Mystic34 (Nov 24, 2008)

http://kxan.com/2015/07/08/lake-buchanan-will-see-beneficial-rain-runoff-this-week/


----------



## LaddH (Sep 29, 2011)

Here is a really cool website that you can use to see all Texas lake levels in one place.
Interesting stuff.
http://www.waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/statewide

That is great news for Lake Buchanan and Central Texas.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

they are saying 7-9 foot increase on the austin weeather


----------



## smokinguntoo (Mar 28, 2012)

An additional 10 - 15 feet of water on that lake will go a long way towards sustaining the highland lakes. And it looks like the rice farmers all the way to Matagorda are going to have plenty of water for awhile.

SG2


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

grayson said:


> they are saying 7-9 foot increase on the austin weeather


I heard the same from family on the lake. Needless to say they are excited. Me too. Its been years since ive boated or swam in it.


----------



## Ready.Fire.Aim (Sep 22, 2009)

smokinguntoo said:


> An additional 10 - 15 feet of water on that lake will go a long way towards sustaining the highland lakes. And it looks like the rice farmers all the way to Matagorda are going to have plenty of water for awhile.
> 
> SG2


No sir, the rice industry is all but dead.

Our state government (TECQ) is maintaing a ban on any LCRA water releases from the highland lakes for farming. The order was kept in place this week.

June 2015 Emergency Order

"On June 17, 2015, the TCEQâ€™s executive director granted an emergency authorization to the LCRA to temporarily amend its Water Management Plan to suspend all interruptible releases of stored water to customers within the Lakeside, Pierce Ranch, and Gulf Coast irrigation operations for the duration of the order. The Commission will consider whether to affirm, modify, or set aside the order at its July 1, 2015, public meeting, at 9:30 a.m., in Building E, 12100 Park 35 Circle, TCEQ, Austin, Texas."

----------

Even though Travis is over 80%

Central Texas Recreational use and real estate values are more important than Agriculture

Looks like we will only get water if lake front houses start flooding.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Ready.Fire.Aim said:


> No sir, the rice industry is all but dead.
> 
> Our state government (TECQ) is maintaing a ban on any water releases from the highland lakes for farming.
> 
> ...


not picking a fight but it is NOT about recreation. LCRA can give a **** about recreation. It is about central texas growing off the charts with new people and homes. This is their one water source. People come before rice - right or wrong


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

smokinguntoo said:


> An additional 10 - 15 feet of water on that lake will go a long way towards sustaining the highland lakes. And it looks like the rice farmers all the way to Matagorda are going to have plenty of water for awhile.
> 
> SG2


Someone should weld the dam gates shut then. pun intended. There should be some flexibility during the next 10 yr drought in Central Tx for Lake Buchanan to at least maintain a semi recreational water level. Council Creek and Thunderbird lodges havent seen water in so long its gonna take a chainsaw to clear off the ramps.


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

Ready.Fire.Aim said:


> No sir, the rice industry is all but dead.
> 
> Our state government (TECQ) is maintaing a ban on any LCRA water releases from the highland lakes for farming. The order was kept in place this week.
> 
> ...


im guessing you havent seen Lake Buchanan in the last 8 years. its been 30 plus foot down with the dam gates wide open at times. Boat docks with trees growing thru them. I see bag after bag of rice at every grocery store in town. There aint no rice shortage.

What a selfish thing to say.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*People before rice*



grayson said:


> not picking a fight but it is NOT about recreation. LCRA can give a **** about recreation. It is about central texas growing off the charts with new people and homes. This is their one water source. People come before rice - right or wrong


People before rice, it all depends on who is voting, it's all politics!
Those highland lakes are there because of the rice farmers not because central Texas is growing off the charts.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Prissy folks need their play water... farmers and waterfowl be damned! :headknock

Anyone who thinks LCRA isn't about recreation and money must not have seen their act in Matagorda.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Water from Lake Brownwood will help also and this was taken as water poured over the spillway yesterday.




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=933214966735131


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Prissy people before rice...to hell with the Farmers.

Until there isn't enough food for all those prissy people.


----------



## fultonswimmer (Jul 3, 2008)

I wonder what influence the feds have on this water flow/bay situation. They have taken steps to keep some flow into areas where the whooping cranes migrate and I am guessing that has caused some controversy.
My rice comes from Vietnam!


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Whats really sad about all this*

Its business as usual - Central Texas and in FACT all of Texas is over capacity in demand vs supply - build more storage HUH? If the rivers don't flow all the dams in the world will be dry holes in twenty years at usage rates, even in a NORMAL rainfall pattern - so the lakes fill up TEMPORARILY, the real climatic changes are forgotten and the lake are drained by demand - ground water Aquifers are just about used up, and lake won't stay full long BECAUSE subterranean water is not allowed to recharge. My uncle Daniel moved from Tennessee for elbow room - its too **** crowded in Texas now and no thought given to SUPPLY.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Haute Pursuit said:


> Prissy folks need their play water... farmers and waterfowl be damned! :headknock
> 
> Anyone who thinks LCRA isn't about recreation and money must not have seen their act in Matagorda.


you sir are clueless - the rice farmers provide income to LCRA when they sell it to them. The recreation makes LCRA zero. You got it backwards


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

gater said:


> People before rice, it all depends on who is voting, it's all politics!
> Those highland lakes are there because of the rice farmers not because central Texas is growing off the charts.


so this lake was built for the rice farmers?? Give me a break. Yeah in the 19040's the government built that lake in central texas just so they could store it and then release it downstream so fields could be flooded in order to grow some rice - yeah right


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Haute Pursuit said:


> Prissy folks need their play water... farmers and waterfowl be damned! :headknock
> 
> Anyone who thinks LCRA isn't about recreation and money must not have seen their act in Matagorda.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Buchanan_(Texas)

here you go - read up on it


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

grayson said:


> so this lake was built for the rice farmers?? Give me a break. Yeah in the 19040's the government built that lake in central texas just so they could store it and then release it downstream so fields could be flooded in order to grow some rice - yeah right


All lakes were built to meet future demand. They had no clue in the 1940s how much develop was coming to Texas. Water for rice/farming, Eltc and drinking water was the major cause.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Jolly Roger said:


> All lakes were built to meet future demand. They had no clue in the 1940s how much develop was coming to Texas. Water for rice/farming, Eltc and drinking water was the major cause.


I agree - they had no clue how much development - but read the link above - it states why the lakes were built - to provide water to the central texas region period -


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Bocephus said:


> Prissy people before rice...to hell with the Farmers.
> 
> Until there isn't enough food for all those prissy people.


 To hell with food: there's thousands of cumulative acres of St. Augustine and Azealas that are dying as we speak. Have some compassion, dude...


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

grayson said:


> I agree - they had no clue how much development - but read the link above - it states why the lakes were built - to provide water to the central texas region period -


the link says exactly what I said. Reservoirs are built for three main reasons, to make power, to supply farmers or to supply drinking water. Most meet several or all of these demands at the same time. Some do help with flood control also.

Development and Recreational are not a factor for public lakes, just happen to come along with the lake being built.

There are lakes, like Rayburn that will release water for farmers. Many other lakes are the same and will release water for farming. Not familiar with the highland lakes, but sure some of them also release water for farming.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> To hell with food: there's thousands of cumulative acres of St. Augustine and Azealas that are dying as we speak. Have some compassion, dude...


Just to set the record straight. Buchanan is not "prissy folks" - maybe Travis, etc. but Buchanan is not fancy - regular people living there and most have been there for many, many years. Many older houses - no marinas, no restaurants, just regular people who live there -


----------



## Crow's Nest (Dec 4, 2009)

It could be argued that due to the severity of the drought Central Texas has endured the last several years that even if the Rice Farmers were allotted their water there stands a real chance that the river could have run dry, or at least to the point that it would not have benefited the Rice Farmers enough to stay in Business anyway.

So then, we have Rice Farmers out of business and 1+Mil people with no water. Really?

Don't get me wrong, there is so much that Austin residents should be doing to conserve water. I have always been an advocate of this. I live in the Hill Country and depend on Aquifers. It kills every time I see someone move in and plant 2 acres of St Augastine with an automated sprinkler system on a well that is connected to an Aquifer.

The results of this could be witnessed in Dripping Springs 10 years ago when the Glen Rose Aquifer went dry at somewhere around 500 ft below the surface. Residents were forced to go to the Trinity at around 800+ ft at a cost of about $15K at the time. What happened was that the LCRA put in a pipeline instead at a cost of about $8k per Tap.

Now, thousands more homes put there straw into the Colorado River to water their St. Augastine.

I have lived in the Hill Country my whole life and scratch my head every day as to why certain landscaping practices are allowed to this day?

We are all only starting to see the beginning of a crises that will continue to grow as our Political Creatures kick the can without addressing the real issues.

As for the Rice Farmers, all I can say is I have deep empathy for their industry and the effects this has had, and will continue to inflict, on their investments. But, anything that is subsidized is vulnerable to extinction at some point.

I say subsidized due to the fact that this industry would not ever exist with out the Dam System constructed. it could not 'Naturally' sustain itself on its own.

We cannot stop the influx of people. But that does not mean we should not be smart with the resource.

And, if it were only all about recreation, the Rice Farmers would have been screwed a long time ago.

Just my .02


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Jolly Roger said:


> the link says exactly what I said. Reservoirs are built for three main reasons, to make power, to supply farmers or to supply drinking water. Most meet several or all of these demands at the same time. Some do help with flood control also.
> 
> Development and Recreational are not a factor for public lakes, just happen to come along with the lake being built.
> 
> There are lakes, like Rayburn that will release water for farmers. Many other lakes are the same and will release water for farming. Not familiar with the highland lakes, but sure some of them also release water for farming.


Sorry but where does it say to supply water for farmers??? It says to supply water for the region


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

grayson said:


> Just to set the record straight. Buchanan is not "prissy folks" - maybe Travis, etc. but Buchanan is not fancy - regular people living there and most have been there for many, many years. Many older houses - no marinas, no restaurants, just regular people who live there -


 Uh, So? The entire highland lakes is one system: the political clout of a million or two suburbanites who want to water their yard four times a week outweighs that of some farmers in Wharton and Matagorda, no matter which usage makes more sense. Old folks don't care about their yard?


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Crow's Nest said:


> It could be argued that due to the severity of the drought Central Texas has endured the last several years that even if the Rice Farmers were allotted their water there stands a real chance that the river could have run dry, or at least to the point that it would not have benefited the Rice Farmers enough to stay in Business anyway.
> 
> So then, we have Rice Farmers out of business and 1+Mil people with no water. Really?
> 
> ...


I highlighted what rice farmers and waterfowl probably think about austinites.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

grayson said:


> Sorry but where does it say to supply water for farmers??? It says to supply water for the region


so there are no farmers in that region?

that is kinda they point of supplying water to a region, there are a lot of uses that need water, farming is one of them

They sell water from every lake in Texas to some type of farming. You just do not know it.


----------



## Crow's Nest (Dec 4, 2009)

Haute Pursuit said:


> I highlighted what rice farmers and waterfowl probably think about austinites.


I concur but as a Duck Hunter myself, I do not control this outcome. I only report what I see and live. I don't like it either.

I wish and long for the days when Austin was under 250K in Population and a sleepy little Capitol. As opposed to the Tech Monster it has become and the growth that entails.

There just is no visibility by the Elected into the future. I don't care if we are talking about Austin, Houston or, especially, Washington.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Crow's Nest said:


> I concur but as a Duck Hunter myself, I do not control this outcome. I only report what I see and live. I don't like it either.
> 
> I wish and long for the days when Austin was under 250K in Population and a sleepy little Capitol. As opposed to the Tech Monster it has become and the growth that entails.
> 
> There just is no visibility by the Elected into the future. I don't care if we are talking about Austin, Houston or, especially, Washington.


I agree with that for sure.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Jolly Roger said:


> so there are no farmers in that region?
> 
> that is kinda they point of supplying water to a region, there are a lot of uses that need water, farming is one of them
> 
> They sell water from every lake in Texas to some type of farming. You just do not know it.


Tell me where the link says the lake was built to provide water for farmers? You said it - now show me where it says that


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> Uh, So? The entire highland lakes is one system: the political clout of a million or two suburbanites who want to water their yard four times a week outweighs that of some farmers in Wharton and Matagorda, no matter which usage makes more sense. Old folks don't care about their yard?


Man you make no sense - never said the influx of people was good or right - I stated what the lakes were built for in the 40's - no arguing that but I am sure you will. I lived up there 8 years so I am well aware of Buchanan - maybe the other lakes overwater, etc. but you are missing the mark on this lake


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

grayson said:


> Tell me where the link says the lake was built to provide water for farmers? You said it - now show me where it says that


It says provide water for the Region, farms and farming is part of the region and they buy water for there use. They buy huge amounts of water. Most farms are not hooked up to the local MUD or city water for there irrigation needs.

Sorry you do not understand this simple fact.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Jolly Roger said:


> It says provide water for the Region, farmer are part of the region and they buy water for there use. They buy huge amounts of water.
> 
> Sorry you do not understand this simple fact.


now that is a stretch - not aware of any farmers buying water in central texas - I believe they are pretty much down far south - not much rice grown up here


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

grayson said:


> now that is a stretch - not aware of any farmers buying water in central texas - I believe they are pretty much down far south - not much rice grown up here


haha, you think only rice farmers buy water.

Is there cotton or Soy bean in that region? All large and most small farms buy there water. I would have to look at a map to tell you what farming in that region buys water from the highland system. But to make it simple, any farms in that area will buy there water from the highland system, it is cheaper, faster and they are the only ones that meet there demand.


----------



## Crow's Nest (Dec 4, 2009)

grayson said:


> Man you make no sense - never said the influx of people was good or right - I stated what the lakes were built for in the 40's - no arguing that but I am sure you will. I lived up there 8 years so I am well aware of Buchanan - maybe the other lakes overwater, etc. but you are missing the mark on this lake


Gryason is correct about Buchanan. I would be suprised if there is any drain off for Farming in that region as it is composed of mainly limestone or granite outcrops an is not suitable for any serious Farming. Ranching yes, Farming, no.

The Highland Lakes Dam System is one system that was originally created to minimize flooding. The LCRA, once created to manage it, created contracts to sell and release excess to Farmers mainly in the Houston area for Rice,

Those contract were, and always have been, subject to the water needs of the population along the Highland Lakes System.

Hence, the current argument on this thread.

Again, recreation is not nor never has been, the deciding factor on releases downstream.


----------



## Crow's Nest (Dec 4, 2009)

Jolly Roger said:


> haha, you think only rice farmers buy water.
> 
> Is there cotton or Soy bean in that region? All large and most small farms buy there water. I would have to look at a map to tell you what farming in that region buys water from the highland system. But to make it simple, any farms in that area will buy there water from the highland system, it is cheaper, faster and they are the only ones that meet there demand.


I will be suprised if you find any.

Fact is, even when there was abundant water in the Highland Lakes, many Cotton and other crop Farmers lost their arses during short term droughts.

Yes, most all, if not all, of the contracts for farming was to Rice

If it were otherwise, the Rice Farmers would probably have never seen a drop.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Jolly Roger said:


> haha, you think only rice farmers buy water.
> 
> Is there cotton or Soy bean in that region? All large and most small farms buy there water. I would have to look at a map to tell you what farming in that region buys water from the highland system. But to make it simple, any farms in that area will buy there water from the highland system, it is cheaper, faster and they are the only ones that meet there demand.


lived here all my life - you are flat wrong - farms around these lakes are not buying water from LCRA -


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

grayson said:


> Man you make no sense - never said the influx of people was good or right - I stated what the lakes were built for in the 40's - no arguing that but I am sure you will. I lived up there 8 years so I am well aware of Buchanan - maybe the other lakes overwater, etc. but you are missing the mark on this lake


 No matter what illusion you have about Buchanan and what it has going on, the LCRA is operating it as one system. They take every drop that falls in the watershed and ends up in one of the Highland Lakes and allocate it according to contractual and political factors. It really, really, really doesn't matter what people around Buchanan specifically do: the fact remains that too much LCRA water is used for stupid purposes just because of political factors; and yes, that includes Buchanan water.


----------



## Crow's Nest (Dec 4, 2009)

dwilliams35 said:


> No matter what illusion you have about Buchanan and what it has going on, the LCRA is operating it as one system. They take every drop that falls in the watershed and ends up in one of the Highland Lakes and allocate it according to contractual and political factors. It really, really, really doesn't matter what people around Buchanan specifically do: the fact remains that too much LCRA water is used for stupid purposes just because of political factors; and yes, that includes Buchanan water.


If you mean Buchanan water that eventually ends up in Austin, yes, you are correct. But around Buchanan proper, I will be shocked and amazed if you can find one example.

And when you use the term 'Political Factors' do you also include the Rice Lobby?


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

grayson said:


> lived here all my life - you are flat wrong - farms around these lakes are not buying water from LCRA -


No, I am not wrong. You may want to read the link, they even sell to rice farmers.........

http://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply/water-supply-contracts/pages/default.aspx

Here is a link showing where they sell water out of Lake Buchanan and Travis to rice farmers. This article is talking about some drought changes, but you should get the general idea that water from the highland lakes are sold to farmers...

http://www.coloradocountycitizen.com/news/article_261322b8-a94e-11e3-971a-001a4bcf887a.html


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Crow's Nest said:


> If you mean Buchanan water that eventually ends up in Austin, yes, you are correct. But around Buchanan proper, I will be shocked and amazed if you can find one example.
> 
> And when you use the term 'Political Factors' do you also include the Rice Lobby?


 Absolutely. Of course, that rice lobby is pretty small pickins' compared to a few million suburbanites: people can just basically vote themselves water now. When the lakes were built, that rice lobby was a pretty major driving force behind it in the first place; now that half the hill country is covered in St. Augustine, however, that lobby just can't compete with the sheer number of votes that Austin, etc. represents.

Again, it doesn't matter exactly where it ends up: whether it's in a yard in Buchanan or a golf course in Austin. Somewhere down the line those particular chickens are going to come home to roost: Texas just doesn't have enough long-term water to be allocating it to stupid uses like tropical landscaping in an arid climate. At least agriculture feeds people; the 16th green at Lago Vista really can't compete when it comes to real utility to our species..


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

The mission of LCRA today and what it was when established, are two completely different animals.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Jolly Roger said:


> so there are no farmers in that region?
> 
> that is kinda they point of supplying water to a region, there are a lot of uses that need water, farming is one of them
> 
> They sell water from every lake in Texas to some type of farming. You just do not know it.


Please tell me where there are rice farmers anywhere near austin?? you stated farmers here in central texas are using this water and you are wrong - the original purpose of these lakes was NOT meant to send water hundreds of miles downstream to flood rice fields in order to kill weeds. By the way the amount of water LCRA has sold in the past to flood fields is MULTIPLE times the amount for use in central texas -


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> Absolutely. Of course, that rice lobby is pretty small pickins' compared to a few million suburbanites: people can just basically vote themselves water now. When the lakes were built, that rice lobby was a pretty major driving force behind it in the first place; now that half the hill country is covered in St. Augustine, however, that lobby just can't compete with the sheer number of votes that Austin, etc. represents.
> 
> Again, it doesn't matter exactly where it ends up: whether it's in a yard in Buchanan or a golf course in Austin. Somewhere down the line those particular chickens are going to come home to roost: Texas just doesn't have enough long-term water to be allocating it to stupid uses like tropical landscaping in an arid climate. At least agriculture feeds people; the 16th green at Lago Vista really can't compete when it comes to real utility to our species..


 I have no argument with that - too many people coming into central texas and long term it will catch up. But to argue that sending it hundreds of miles downstream to flood a field for weeds versus being used by humans who live here is an absurd argument. My guess is there are plenty of people in Houston, Dallas, and all of Texas watering golf courses and their lawns.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

grayson said:


> Please tell me where there are rice farmers anywhere near austin?? you stated farmers here in central texas are using this water and you are wrong - the original purpose of these lakes was NOT meant to send water hundreds of miles downstream to flood rice fields in order to kill weeds. By the way the amount of water LCRA has sold in the past to flood fields is MULTIPLE times the amount for use in central texas -


Do you actually believe that rice is the only crop that gets irrigated?


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

grayson said:


> Please tell me where there are rice farmers anywhere near austin?? you stated farmers here in central texas are using this water and you are wrong - the original purpose of these lakes was NOT meant to send water hundreds of miles downstream to flood rice fields in order to kill weeds. By the way the amount of water LCRA has sold in the past to flood fields is MULTIPLE times the amount for use in central texas -


never claimed nor said there were rice farms around Austin.

If you are ignorant enough think farmers in central Texas growing cotton, soy, corn, etc.. are not buying there water from LCRA then not much you are going to understand about this. 
I suggest you read the links I posted.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Haute Pursuit said:


> The mission of LCRA today and what it was when established, are two completely different animals.


their mission today is to make money and the way they do that is sell to rice farmers - but locals living here who were watching their water flow downstream put a stop to it - same thing the folks in the rice farm area near Houston would do if their lakes were being drained - I have nothing against farmers - my family history is farming. But to argue that flooding fields versus people having water to live will never fly no matter what


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

dwilliams35 said:


> Do you actually believe that rice is the only crop that gets irrigated?


I truly think he does.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Jolly Roger said:


> never claimed nor said there were rice farms around Austin.
> 
> If you are ignorant enough think farmers in central Texas growing cotton, soy, corn, etc.. are not buying there water from LCRA then not much you are going to understand about this.
> I suggest you read the links I posted.


Ok you are right - drain these lakes and leave thousands of people without water so it can flow downstream to flood fields to kill weeds - great logical argument -


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

grayson said:


> Ok you are right - drain these lakes and leave thousands of people without water so it can flow downstream to flood fields to kill weeds - great logical argument -


never said that, or anything close to that

the main use of that water is to make Electricity. You water is getting drained to make power.


----------



## Crow's Nest (Dec 4, 2009)

dwilliams35 said:


> Absolutely. Of course, that rice lobby is pretty small pickins' compared to a few million suburbanites: people can just basically vote themselves water now. When the lakes were built, that rice lobby was a pretty major driving force behind it in the first place; now that half the hill country is covered in St. Augustine, however, that lobby just can't compete with the sheer number of votes that Austin, etc. represents.
> 
> *Again, it doesn't matter exactly where it ends up: whether it's in a yard in Buchanan or a golf course in Austin. Somewhere down the line those particular chickens are HAVE to come home to roost: *Texas just doesn't have enough long-term water to be allocating it to stupid uses like tropical landscaping in an arid climate. At least agriculture feeds people; the 16th green at Lago Vista really can't compete when it comes to real utility to our species..


FIFY

Also, the 16th Green at Lago as well as most Golf Coarses in and around Austin are actually irrigated by retreated water from waste water sites. In fact, they are obligated to accept all of the waste water under their contracts regardless of droughts or monsoons. So, take golf coarse out of the cause. And I don't play Golf.

The biggest culprit is just sheer numbers of people inhabiting our region and not being mindful of their landscaping. And, when a severe drought like we have just experienced depletes our lakes, a drought of record mind you, we find ourselves in the situation we are in.

Rice Farming in Texas, sadly, will die as a result.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

grayson said:


> I have no argument with that - too many people coming into central texas and long term it will catch up. But to argue that sending it hundreds of miles downstream to flood a field for weeds versus being used by humans who live here is an absurd argument. My guess is there are plenty of people in Houston, Dallas, and all of Texas watering golf courses and their lawns.


 At what point did I say that this was a problem that solely existed in the Colorado watershed? The Brazos has the same problems: everybody from the south side of Houston down to Galveston is using Brazos water to water their yard... It's just a stupid practice, and we need to change the mindset that requires lush green lawns to the exclusion of basic human necessities.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Jolly Roger said:


> never claimed nor said there were rice farms around Austin.
> 
> If you are ignorant enough think farmers in central Texas growing cotton, soy, corn, etc.. are not buying there water from LCRA then not much you are going to understand about this.
> I suggest you read the links I posted.


for starters dont call me ignorant - secondly I read your links - says municipal and domestic use - the agricultural use states rice - show me where it states local austin area farmers are buying water


----------



## Crow's Nest (Dec 4, 2009)

dwilliams35 said:


> At what point did I say that this was a problem that solely existed in the Colorado watershed? The Brazos has the same problems: everybody from the south side of Houston down to Galveston is using Brazos water to water their yard... *It's just a stupid practice, and we need to change the mindset that requires lush green lawns to the exclusion of basic human necessities*.


/\/\THIS/\/\


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> No matter what illusion you have about Buchanan and what it has going on, the LCRA is operating it as one system. They take every drop that falls in the watershed and ends up in one of the Highland Lakes and allocate it according to contractual and political factors. It really, really, really doesn't matter what people around Buchanan specifically do: the fact remains that too much LCRA water is used for stupid purposes just because of political factors; and yes, that includes Buchanan water.


Here is where you said it was highland lakes - lcra has nothing to do with Brazos but you do not state that here - I see no mention of these issues from you about other reservoirs


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Crow's Nest said:


> FIFY
> 
> Also, the 16th Green at Lago as well as most Golf Coarses in and around Austin are actually irrigated by retreated water from waste water sites. In fact, they are obligated to accept all of the waste water under their contracts regardless of droughts or monsoons. So, take golf coarse out of the cause. And I don't play Golf.
> 
> ...


we can argue all day but your last line sums it up - it is not going back


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Jolly Roger said:


> never said that, or anything close to that
> 
> the main use of that water is to make Electricity. You water is getting drained to make power.


when lcra was releasing water to rice farmers compare the amount sent to them versus what was being used for personal consumption in central texas - once you find those figures please post them here and lets compare who where the real waste is


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

grayson said:


> Here is where you said it was highland lakes - lcra has nothing to do with Brazos but you do not state that here - I see no mention of these issues from you about other reservoirs


 Because I'm not myopic enough to consider Lake Buchanan as a stand-alone entity. Like I've been saying all along: the highland lakes is a system; just like the Brazos lakes is a system administered by the BRA in conjunction with the COE. This isn't a local problem: it's statewide, worse in some places, better in others: no matter where you're talking about, or what watershed or waterbody you give a **** about, Texans need to get their head out of their *** and stop using water for stupid purposes. Agriculture makes more sense for the survival of our state and our species than most of what we're using it for currently, unless you can figure out a way to get nutritional value out of your St. Augustine...


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Crow's Nest said:


> FIFY
> 
> Also, the 16th Green at Lago as well as most Golf Coarses in and around Austin are actually irrigated by retreated water from waste water sites. In fact, they are obligated to accept all of the waste water under their contracts regardless of droughts or monsoons. So, take golf coarse out of the cause. And I don't play Golf.
> 
> ...


 So they're spraying water on golf courses that otherwise would be treated and returned to the river. Got it. At least the rice fields get drained back into the river..


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> Because I'm not myopic enough to consider Lake Buchanan as a stand-alone entity. Like I've been saying all along: the highland lakes is a system; just like the Brazos lakes is a system administered by the BRA in conjunction with the COE. This isn't a local problem: it's statewide, worse in some places, better in others: no matter where you're talking about, or what watershed or waterbody you give a **** about, Texans need to get their head out of their *** and stop using water for stupid purposes. Agriculture makes more sense for the survival of our state and our species than most of what we're using it for currently, unless you can figure out a way to get nutritional value out of your St. Augustine...


Worth more than humans drinking it?


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

grayson said:


> Worth more than humans drinking it?


 Dang, you drink a helluva lot of water if you can even think about comparing that to lawn irrigation.


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

Initially created for and current primary existence is for flood control. Believe what you will. Highland dams save Austin just like Canyon saves New Braunfels with every heavy rain. We don't get rain like you all do on the coast. We get the average 25" annually that you all do...you ought to be here the day it comes.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

ATX 4x4 said:


> Initially created for flood control.


 Travis is the only one of the highland lakes with any flood control component in its design. Everything else was water management for all uses, including agriculture.


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> Travis is the only one of the highland lakes with any flood control component in its design. Everything else was water management for all uses, including agriculture.


Mansfield was not the first dam.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

ATX 4x4 said:


> Mansfield was not the first dam.


 So? It's still the only one that was specifically designed with flood control in mind.. Could some of the other dams help with that? Of course; their primary purpose, however, is water management.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> Dang, you drink a helluva lot of water if you can even think about comparing that to lawn irrigation.


Going to bed. Senseless


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

grayson said:


> Going to bed. Senseless


 That's probably best: you're obviously suffering the effects of dehydration because all the water you were going to drink is killing weeds..:headknock


----------



## Crow's Nest (Dec 4, 2009)

dwilliams35 said:


> So they're spraying water on golf courses that otherwise would be treated and returned to the river. Got it. At least the rice fields get drained back into the river..


Okay, there is no easy answer to this problem and it is only going to get worse once the next, 'Drought of Record' occurs.

That said, the only thing I can offer to help you poor som*****es in Houston is I promise to Piz toward the Southeast the next time I the get urge and will encourage my friends to do the same.

Why? Because, I'm a giver!:slimer::slimer::slimer:

You're welcome.

Crow


----------



## Ready.Fire.Aim (Sep 22, 2009)

Jolly Roger said:


> never said that, or anything close to that
> 
> the main use of that water is to make Electricity. You water is getting drained to make power.


Not true anymore. Less than 6% of LCRA power comes from hydro.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Crow's Nest said:


> Okay, there is no easy answer to this problem and it is only going to get worse once the next, 'Drought of Record' occurs.
> 
> That said, the only thing I can offer to help you poor som*****es in Houston is I promise to Piz toward the Southeast the next time I get urge and will encourage my friends to do the same.
> 
> ...


 You better have a really strong bladder to get that stream out of the Colorado watershed...

It's all just correcting a mindset: we've got decades of blatantly wanton waste of water all over this state: it's a problem that has been creeping up on us, but nobody really started to see a problem until the Colorado watershed started seeing the explosive growth that it has over the last 25 years or so: it's the first place in the state where unchecked human demand for water has simply outpaced the ability of the climate to supply it. Now we're seeing the same thing in the Brazos watershed once the Houston-Galveston corridor started to lay claim to Brazos water. (they've already tried unsuccessfully to steal some senior water rights over the last few years, those efforts are by no means going to end soon). Sooner or later the Trinity will start to see the same problems as well. I doubt we can come up with enough ability to change the climate in time, so the only option is to cut usage: that's going to require a simple change in the norm; our cities have just taken water for granted: it comes out of the faucet and never runs out. That's all going to change before long, and we'll be much better off if our habits and infrastructure are ready for it when that happens.


----------



## Crow's Nest (Dec 4, 2009)

dwilliams35 said:


> *You better have a really strong bladder to get that stream out of the Colorado watershed... *
> 
> It's all just correcting a mindset: we've got decades of blatantly wanton waste of water all over this state: it's a problem that has been creeping up on us, but nobody really started to see a problem until the Colorado watershed started seeing the explosive growth that it has over the last 25 years or so: it's the first place in the state where unchecked human demand for water has simply outpaced the ability of the climate to supply it. Now we're seeing the same thing in the Brazos watershed once the Houston-Galveston corridor started to lay claim to Brazos water. (they've already tried unsuccessfully to steal some senior water rights over the last few years, those efforts are by no means going to end soon). Sooner or later the Trinity will start to see the same problems as well. I doubt we can come up with enough ability to change the climate in time, so the only option is to cut usage: that's going to require a simple change in the norm; our cities have just taken water for granted: it comes out of the faucet and never runs out. That's all going to change before long, and we'll be much better off if our habits and infrastructure are ready for it when that happens.


I'll do my best but, I'm only one guy!

Everything else we totally agree on. The future will be interesting!


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Ready.Fire.Aim said:


> Not true anymore. Less than 6% of LCRA power comes from hydro.


Now add in the consumptive uses; hydro isn't really consumptive, it just complicates management. Look how much water the South Texas Project has contracted from the LCRA.. There's water allocated to every power plant out there...


----------



## Ready.Fire.Aim (Sep 22, 2009)

grayson said:


> not picking a fight .........


LOL, Ironically it looks you did.

LCRA is a four letter word down here.

The Rice industry is gone.

Gulf Coast goose and duck hunting is a shadow of its former glory days.

Limited rice acreage still exists using well water, I was shicked seeing some north of Bay City last week.

Everybody else farming has transitioned to row crops or gone out of business. Thousands of acres are out of any type of crop production.

A good buddy of mine lost all of his equipment back to the bank last year - he had a large irrigated hay business but couldn't buy irrigation water.

Time to evolve. Maybe we'll establish even more well water irrigated St. Augustine turf farms in place of rice, hay, and row crops since central Texas demand for it has increased........

A huge pumping plant is being built at Bay City to pump Colorado River water to a Corpus Christi. They bought Garwood Irrigation company's water rights. That is going to be interesting if those are firm water rights and they release Buchanan water to send to Corpus.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Pretty interesting document: especially the cratering of Ag usage over the last 5 years..

http://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply/Documents/2014-Water-Use-Summary.pdf


----------



## Crow's Nest (Dec 4, 2009)

dwilliams35 said:


> Pretty interesting document: especially the cratering of Ag usage over the last 5 years..
> 
> http://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply/Documents/2014-Water-Use-Summary.pdf


Did you have chance to view Lake Travis, I mean the Colorado River, over the last 4 years?

As I mentioned earlier, if the flow were allowed to continue to the downstream farmers it probably would not have been enough to keep them in business and definitely would have put the Municipal usage in dire straights at the same time.

It was not a pretty situation.

It will only get worse.


----------



## Ready.Fire.Aim (Sep 22, 2009)

dwilliams35 said:


> Now add in the consumptive uses; hydro isn't really consumptive, it just complicates management. Look how much water the South Texas Project has contracted from the LCRA.. There's water allocated to every power plant out there...


How much? I know for a fact based on LCRA records that South Texas Project reservoir -since it was built 30 years ago - only pumps water from the Colorado when there is high water flow due to rain and has received zero water from any highland lake storage. They still have to buy that water from the LCRA.

That is why LCRA is building that reservoir at Pierce to capture run of river water that falls downstream of the highland lakes during high rainfall periods.

The 7000 acre STP reservoir is equivalent in storage to 1/10 of the entire highland lake capacity so LCRA is copying that concept.


----------



## Longshot270 (Aug 5, 2011)

The future of drinking water will probably be in the aquifer storage and recovery projects like what San Antonio is doing at Twin Oaks. Inject excess water into small aquifers so that it can be harvested later.



dwilliams35 said:


> So they're spraying water on golf courses that otherwise would be treated and returned to the river. Got it. At least the rice fields get drained back into the river..


I'm sure the water being sprayed on a fancy Austin golf course is cleaner than what would be sent to the rivers. New Braunfels had brown water being sent to lake Dunlap until TCEQ did their inspection of the plant. I heard they got some violations.

Funny thing is, I heard some of the golf courses were getting violations for storm water runoff. The issues came from over-irrigation due to the contractual obligations to the sewage treatment plants. The golf courses got caught between a rock and a hard place and the TCEQ violations turned out cheaper than the legal threats from the treatment plants. At least the rice farmers won't have to add fertilizer if the water ever makes it to them.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Interesting - the prissy folks are keeping one day a week water rationing while most of rest of state is not - including the area where the rice is grown -

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/new...btomystatesmanpremium#53b950cc.3559167.735789


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

grayson said:


> Interesting - the prissy folks are keeping one day a week water rationing while most of rest of state is not - including the area where the rice is grown -
> 
> http://www.mystatesman.com/news/new...btomystatesmanpremium#53b950cc.3559167.735789


I personally believe water restrictions should be statewide and in place year round regardless of rainfall.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

ChuChu said:


> I personally believe water restrictions should be statewide and in place year round regardless of rainfall.


That's probably a bit problematic; apply the same restrictions to someone living in the Sabine swamp as are applied to Fort Stockton?


----------



## Longshot270 (Aug 5, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> That's probably a bit problematic; apply the same restrictions to someone living in the Sabine swamp as are applied to Fort Stockton?


 How so? Think about the drinking water production companies spread across the state. A single standard would be easier than all of the politics and guess work that comes with watering restrictions. I talked with a plant operator one time that had customers complaining about watering restrictions because the nearest city had temporarily lifted watering restrictions and his water system didn't. Different wells in different aquifers. His wells were in a small, shallow aquifer and the city was sucking from a giant aquifer.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

dwilliams35 said:


> That's probably a bit problematic; apply the same restrictions to someone living in the Sabine swamp as are applied to Fort Stockton?


How so?


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

ChuChu said:


> How so?


 Politically. Try telling somebody surrounded by water even during droughts that he can't water his yard because the guy who is trying to establish an oasis in the desert hasn't been able to grasp the concept that it's unsustainable.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

I see that the "prissy" comment pretty much hit the nail on the head. LOL


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Longshot270 said:


> How so? Think about the drinking water production companies spread across the state. A single standard would be easier than all of the politics and guess work that comes with watering restrictions. I talked with a plant operator one time that had customers complaining about watering restrictions because the nearest city had temporarily lifted watering restrictions and his water system didn't. Different wells in different aquifers. His wells were in a small, shallow aquifer and the city was sucking from a giant aquifer.


 How about private wells? Going to restrict them too?


----------



## skinnywaterfishin (Jul 1, 2015)

I'm curious why farmers of one region of the state think it's their right to use water from another region of the state?

Water is a precious natural resource. Look at population predictions. Look at the water issues California, Vegas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona are having.

It's ironic hearing talk of folks having a green lawn when farmers are using flood irrigation methods using millions and millions of gallons of water.

What has been the conditions of rivers downstream of these farmers where they empty into the Gulf?


----------



## skinnywaterfishin (Jul 1, 2015)

dwilliams35 said:


> How about private wells? Going to restrict them too?


They already are on the Edwards....and should imo.

No one should be able tap into diminishing aquifers and suck as much water as they please. Especially those that supply drinking water to regions with current and future predicted exploding populations.


----------



## skinnywaterfishin (Jul 1, 2015)

Haute Pursuit said:


> I see that the "prissy" comment pretty much hit the nail on the head. LOL


Resulting to petty, childish middle school name calling while having an adult conversation shows a lack of intelligence and ability to have a rational, adult debate.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

skinnywaterfishin said:


> I'm curious why farmers of one region of the state think it's their right to use water from another region of the state?
> 
> Water is a precious natural resource. Look at population predictions. Look at the water issues California, Vegas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona are having.
> 
> ...


We're talking about a heck of a long history of different users sharing the water: that's not going to just change instantaneously, and the rights to that water go back a long way as well. We've now found ourselves in a political battle when entities upstream basically unilaterally decided that they have more rights to the water than anybody.

It's a matter of priorities: I for one just happen to think that people being able to eat is a higher priority than a yard of the month sign.

Also, "flood irrigation" is essentially just borrowing water: most of that ends up back in the bays as the fields are drained.. That's not the case with lawn sprinklers, at least up until the point where they're overwatering to the point of it running down the gutter.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Haute Pursuit said:


> I see that the "prissy" comment pretty much hit the nail on the head. LOL


That's all you got? Man my feelings are REALLY hurt


----------



## Jungle_Jim (Nov 16, 2007)

grayson said:


> not picking a fight but it is NOT about recreation. LCRA can give a **** about recreation. It is about central texas growing off the charts with new people and homes. This is their one water source. People come before rice - right or wrong


No more rice, pretty soon die.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Jungle_Jim said:


> No more rice, pretty soon die.


 But at least the cockroaches that take over our houses once we're extinct will have a very nice yard.


----------



## Jungle_Jim (Nov 16, 2007)

skinnywaterfishin said:


> They already are on the Edwards....and should imo.
> 
> No one should be able tap into diminishing aquifers and suck as much water as they please. Especially those that supply drinking water to regions with current and future predicted exploding populations.


 LOL, no


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> Pretty interesting document: especially the cratering of Ag usage over the last 5 years..
> 
> http://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply/Documents/2014-Water-Use-Summary.pdf


So in 2011 the amount of water that went to farmers to flood fields (529,000) was more than double the amount that went to homes (246,000). And some folks on this thread are complaining about watering yards and people using for drinking water? Residential use should be limited and restricted but the real loss of water from the lakes was sitting out in some fields.
And not to mention the price for farming was around $7 an acre foot while the rest is around $170 an acre foot.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

grayson said:


> So in 2011 the amount of water that went to farmers to flood fields (529,000) was more than double the amount that went to homes (246,000). And some folks on this thread are complaining about watering yards and people using for drinking water? Residential use should be limited and restricted but the real loss of water from the lakes was sitting out in some fields.
> And not to mention the price for farming was around $7 an acre foot while the rest is around $170 an acre foot.


Interesting you should pick out 2011.... Nice cherrypicking the data, there... I guess you just don't want to talk about 2014...


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

skinnywaterfishin said:


> They already are on the Edwards....and should imo.
> 
> No one should be able tap into diminishing aquifers and suck as much water as they please. Especially those that supply drinking water to regions with current and future predicted exploding populations.


So you're going to put a meter on every well in Texas. Nice job, comrade.


----------



## chumy (Jul 13, 2012)

skinnywaterfishin said:


> They already are on the Edwards....and should imo.
> 
> No one should be able tap into diminishing aquifers and suck as much water as they please. Especially those that supply drinking water to regions with current and future predicted exploding populations.


I own the water and every other mineral that's under my land. I think all the way to China. lol


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> Interesting you should pick out 2011.... Nice cherrypicking the data, there... I guess you just don't want to talk about 2014...


your arguments make zero sense - it dropped after 2011 because of a severe drought - I also tells the story as to why that much water cannot be sent downstream to flood fields - this whole discussion is about 2014 and current -


----------



## Jamie (Aug 2, 2011)

Grayson is right, well it was really 3 times the amount (the amount of water used in years 2011, 2012, and 2013), about the last real release in 2011....it's well documented. The highland lakes never recovered from that

And if you bother to research it, the Austin metroplex used less water now then it did years ago with a lot, lot more people

Austin used 168,334 acre feet in 2011

Even less in 2012 (151,495)

And even less in 2013 (142,027)


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

grayson said:


> your arguments make zero sense - it dropped after 2011 because of a severe drought - I also tells the story as to why that much water cannot be sent downstream to flood fields - this whole discussion is about 2014 and current -


 So if this discussion is about 2014 and current, why is 2011 data more pertinent than 2014??

The real factor there is that agriculture has now changed to accept the realities: people have lost their farms, their livelihoods, land is now idle and nonproductive, and we're that much closer to starving ourselves. Some has gone to other, less water-intensive crops, some hasn't. But at least our yard's nice. The municipal users haven't made any significant such measures: the pitiful decrease in municipal usage can probably be laid at the door of water restrictions, but the root problem is still there: nobody gives a **** about the state as a whole when it comes to water. The yard's gotta be green, and the larger picture be damned. Rice just comes out of bags at HEB anyway, right?


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Jamie said:


> Grayson is right, well it was really 3 times the amount (the amount of water used in years 2011, 2012, and 2013), about the last real release in 2011....it's well documented. The highland lakes never recovered from that
> 
> And if you bother to research it, the Austin metroplex used less water now then it did years ago with a lot, lot more people
> 
> ...


 The 2015 or 2016 number is going to be the real one there: what happens when water restrictions start to get lifted? You can't just consider the drought's effect on agriculture and ignore the same effect on municipal water.


----------



## smak90 (Sep 4, 2011)

No one has mentioned it but isn't there a new reservoir being built by the LCRA specifically for the rice farmers? Since the bulk of our rainfall falls East of I-35 this new lake will be able to capture that rainfall. If the rice farmers can pull water from here without having to impact the highland lakes this should solve a lot of the problems we saw in the last 5 years. The state really needs to build more lakes since the more water we have the better off we will be.

http://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply/pages/new-water.aspx


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

skinnywaterfishin said:


> I'm curious why farmers of one region of the state think it's their right to use water from another region of the state?
> 
> Water is a precious natural resource. Look at population predictions. Look at the water issues California, Vegas, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona are having.
> 
> ...


A better argument could be made why people up river have the right to stop the flow of a river and claim all the water is there's? Water runs down the river natural.

Farmers at the end of the river only divert it then send the water that planting does not use back to the river. Farmers in Central Texas pump there water to the fields, then it runs back into the river. Water used by farmers is not a zero sum use.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

smak90 said:


> No one has mentioned it but isn't there a new reservoir being built by the LCRA specifically for the rice farmers? Since the bulk of our rainfall falls East of I-35 this new lake will be able to capture that rainfall. If the rice farmers can pull water from here without having to impact the highland lakes this should solve a lot of the problems we saw in the last 5 years. The state really needs to build more lakes since the more water we have the better off we will be.
> 
> http://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply/pages/new-water.aspx


how dare you disrupt this "pecker-measuring" contest with facts!

:rotfl:


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

smak90 said:


> No one has mentioned it but isn't there a new reservoir being built by the LCRA specifically for the rice farmers? Since the bulk of our rainfall falls East of I-35 this new lake will be able to capture that rainfall. If the rice farmers can pull water from here without having to impact the highland lakes this should solve a lot of the problems we saw in the last 5 years. The state really needs to build more lakes since the more water we have the better off we will be.
> 
> http://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply/pages/new-water.aspx


That's a start, but there's a lot of farming going on upstream from Lane City.. I guess we can just put Grayson on the bridge on highway 35 to tell all that water to get its sorry butt back up to Garwood.


----------



## TheGoose (Jan 22, 2006)

No you dont. Your water is owned by the Brazoria County Groundwater Conservation District. Thanks to the voters of Brazoria County.



chumy said:


> I own the water and every other mineral that's under my land. I think all the way to China. lol


----------



## smokinguntoo (Mar 28, 2012)

Colorado River current flow at San Saba is about 23K CFS and a rise of about 22 ft. at the measuring point. That flow is peaking today and will begin to drop off for about a week or more. The lake has come up about a foot since yesterday. The storm flow has really just reached the upper lake so it'll be on the rise for the next week or two.

Got some education on water usage for which I am grateful. 

SG2


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

TheGoose said:


> No you dont. Your water is owned by the Brazoria County Groundwater Conservation District. Thanks to the voters of Brazoria County.


 No, you still own it by Texas law; groundwater districts haven't diminished the right of capture. They just have some authority over how much you use and how you use it..


----------



## TheGoose (Jan 22, 2006)

So in other words you own it but you really cant use it. IE, you don't own it.



dwilliams35 said:


> No, you still own it by Texas law; groundwater districts haven't diminished the right of capture. They just have some authority over how much you use and how you use it..


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

TheGoose said:


> So in other words you own it but you really cant use it. IE, you don't own it.


 Not really any different than money in a 401k, owning guns when you live in the city, etc...


----------



## TheGoose (Jan 22, 2006)

Except that you are only able to do with your water what the BCGD allows you to do. You have to get a permit to drill any well larger than 4" and even then some of the 4" wells are metered. Not saying that it's all a bad thing but it is definitely regulated and you don't really "own" the water free and clear like the OP claimed.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

dwilliams35 said:


> So if this discussion is about 2014 and current, why is 2011 data more pertinent than 2014??
> 
> The real factor there is that agriculture has now changed to accept the realities: people have lost their farms, their livelihoods, land is now idle and nonproductive, and we're that much closer to starving ourselves. Some has gone to other, less water-intensive crops, some hasn't. But at least our yard's nice. The municipal users haven't made any significant such measures: the pitiful decrease in municipal usage can probably be laid at the door of water restrictions, but the root problem is still there: nobody gives a **** about the state as a whole when it comes to water. The yard's gotta be green, and the larger picture be damned. Rice just comes out of bags at HEB anyway, right?


Man you argue just for the sake of arguing - you very first statement above shows that. The last 5-6 years in this area has changed the lakes and LCRA forever - ie. lakes in good shape, drought starts, LCRA still sends loads of water downstream, lakes going dry, LCRA stops sending the water and now lakes are filling up again. Truth is we can go back and forth all day but the fact is the game has changed - restrictions on dumping water out of these lakes to flood fields have changed forever. What is hard to understand about that.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

grayson said:


> Man you argue just for the sake of arguing - you very first statement above shows that. The last 5-6 years in this area has changed the lakes and LCRA forever - ie. lakes in good shape, drought starts, LCRA still sends loads of water downstream, lakes going dry, LCRA stops sending the water and now lakes are filling up again. Truth is we can go back and forth all day but the fact is the game has changed - restrictions on dumping water out of these lakes to flood fields have changed forever. What is hard to understand about that.


the only part you have gotten correct is it has changed.

In the past that water was for making Electricity and supplying farmers. Water use by the public was not much of a consideration in the 1940s when they built the system as most were using wells. In fact when almost all of Texas reservoirs were built, very few public water systems were using surface water as drinking water because they could not treat it good enough for public use.


----------



## TexasVines (Jan 5, 2012)

looking at the size of Lake Brownwood, the acre feet rise, the number of feet/acre feet it is "over full" and comparing that to Buchanan unfortunately I see Buchanan only going up to about 61%.....I hope I am way off, but still better than nothing and with Brownwood being full finally that can only help downstream in the future


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

TheGoose said:


> Except that you are only able to do with your water what the BCGD allows you to do. You have to get a permit to drill any well larger than 4" and even then some of the 4" wells are metered. Not saying that it's all a bad thing but it is definitely regulated and you don't really "own" the water free and clear like the OP claimed.


 Anything bigger than a 4" well is going to be pretty clearly commercial at some level anyway: puts it in a whole different category. As soon as they start metering residential wells, we're talking a completely different ballgame.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

grayson said:


> Man you argue just for the sake of arguing - you very first statement above shows that. The last 5-6 years in this area has changed the lakes and LCRA forever - ie. lakes in good shape, drought starts, LCRA still sends loads of water downstream, lakes going dry, *LCRA stops sending the water and now lakes are filling up again*. Truth is we can go back and forth all day but the fact is the game has changed - restrictions on dumping water out of these lakes to flood fields have changed forever. What is hard to understand about that.


Dang, and all this time I thought it had rained...


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

grayson said:


> you sir are clueless - the rice farmers provide income to LCRA when they sell it to them. The recreation makes LCRA zero. You got it backwards


Actually both of those sources of income are insignificant and dwarfed by the income from selling electrical power, power transmission, and investment bonds. http://www.lcra.org/about/financial-highlights/Documents/financial-statements-fy-2014.pdf

And income from recreation is NOT zero. LCRA runs multiple parks on the Colorado river watershed, charges admission, camping fees, and boat ramp fees. Each of those parks are packed with hundreds to thousands of people on weekends, and full during the summer weeks too.

Look at the table at the top of page 14 of the financial statement at the link above for the source of my comments.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

What a lot of people don't know is that in the summer of 2011 LCRA under contract with downstream rice producers had to release almost 300k acre feet of water from Travis. That is almost a third of its capacity. The release schedule at that time called for x amount of water over a 24+ month period, there was not a large need but under the contract had to be met so the water was released. Serious drought ensued, we know the rest.

Since then water release agreements have been changed, understandably so. Bottom line is we cannot releases that amount of water, roughly what the entire city of Austin would use in 18 months, so that rice farmers can grow crops. Years ago it worked, not anymore, throw in a severe drought and it makes matter far worse. 

Now, I am avid duck hunter, have had leases in the Garwood area and others for years. I grew up in agriculture so I am very sympathetic to what is happening to the farmers down there, but times have changed, no other way to put it.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Also, Buchanan is a huge lake size wise, but the top 15% of its size is relatively shallow and gets hit hard by evaporation much more so than Travis, which by the way holds a little more water. So Buchanan fluctuates quite a bit in the top 10-15% of its capacity. A lot of the water sent downstream comes out of Travis.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

grayson said:


> I agree - they had no clue how much development - but read the link above - it states why the lakes were built - to provide water to the central texas region period -


Wrong, while water was certainly one consideration, the two biggest drivers for building the lakes were to provide electrification to central TX, and for Flood Control. Austin (the state Capitol BTW) was devasted by several major floods, and two major dam collapses prior to the highland lakes being built. Much of the funding to finish the dam on Buchanan came from the passing of the federal Rural Electrificaton Act after the depression (it also created the TVA that built dams on the Tennessee river valley) that provided grant monies to state. A senator named LBJ helped TX get in on that deal.


----------



## kweber (Sep 20, 2005)

too bad Bill didn't go into SW/W Tx instead of yall's mosquito swamps.
150 yrs ago a wise Texan pronounced that there was enough land in Texas for everybody, but only enough water to fight over...
I think now we have too many Texans.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

grayson said:


> when lcra was releasing water to rice farmers compare the amount sent to them versus what was being used for personal consumption in central texas - once you find those figures please post them here and lets compare who where the real waste is


The figures you want are public record, published every year, google "LCRA Water Management Plan". For 2014, here are the proposed releases from the "Technical Papers" section of the huge plan - http://www.lcra.org/water/water-sup...-files/AppendixA_TechPapers_2014Oct_FINAL.pdf

Look at the chart on page 10 titled Exhibit 2, that is the release plan for the major coastal irrigation Canal systems. A map of those systems' locations can be found a few pages earlier.

Section 3 page 20, for Municicple demands in paragraph 3.1.1 says 5000 acre feet for domestic use.

Section 5 page 23, goes into detail how lake levels determine curtailment of agricultural releases.


----------



## Daddio (Sep 6, 2006)

The new reservoir in Lane Ctis for Firm water customers 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Daddio (Sep 6, 2006)

The new reservoir at Lane City is for Firm Water customers not for Agricultural purposes go read the press release!
Besides it is below Garwood and Eagle Lake irrigation systems, no use for them!
Agricultural water is considered interruptible water not firm!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

skinnywaterfishin said:


> Resulting to petty, childish middle school name calling while having an adult conversation shows a lack of intelligence and ability to have a rational, adult debate.


Please show me where I called anyone in particular a petty, childish middle school name kind, rational,intelligent adult sir... 

If the shoe fits you, you should just wear it with pride.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Pocketfisherman said:


> Actually both of those sources of income are insignificant and dwarfed by the income from selling electrical power, power transmission, and investment bonds. http://www.lcra.org/about/financial-highlights/Documents/financial-statements-fy-2014.pdf
> 
> And income from recreation is NOT zero. LCRA runs multiple parks on the Colorado river watershed, charges admission, camping fees, and boat ramp fees. Each of those parks are packed with hundreds to thousands of people on weekends, and full during the summer weeks too.
> 
> Look at the table at the top of page 14 of the financial statement at the link above for the source of my comments.


Read the post after this one - his response is spot on - it is over for flooding rice fields in order to kill weeds - move on


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

duckmania said:


> What a lot of people don't know is that in the summer of 2011 LCRA under contract with downstream rice producers had to release almost 300k acre feet of water from Travis. That is almost a third of its capacity. The release schedule at that time called for x amount of water over a 24+ month period, there was not a large need but under the contract had to be met so the water was released. Serious drought ensued, we know the rest.
> 
> Since then water release agreements have been changed, understandably so. Bottom line is we cannot releases that amount of water, roughly what the entire city of Austin would use in 18 months, so that rice farmers can grow crops. Years ago it worked, not anymore, throw in a severe drought and it makes matter far worse.
> 
> Now, I am avid duck hunter, have had leases in the Garwood area and others for years. I grew up in agriculture so I am very sympathetic to what is happening to the farmers down there, but times have changed, no other way to put it.


You nailed it - I have nothing against farmers. Nothing against hunting - done it all my life. But the days of dumping hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water into fields to kill weeds is over. I am sympathetic too but also a realist - times have changed


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

back on topic.

Just heard from somone at the lake that it is almost full! It could end up being a nice summer on the lake for the locals. They've waited years.


----------



## Mr. Saltwater (Oct 5, 2012)

Still 21 ft. below full but headed in the right direction.

http://buchanan.lakesonline.com/Level.asp


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

yea well i cant argue, im not there. Just heard fom someone that is there. he said its almost full. I think he actually saw it since he lives on the lake. 

Are you there?


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

txbred said:


> yea well i cant argue, im not there. Just heard fom someone that is there. he said its almost full. I think he actually saw it since he lives on the lake.
> 
> Are you there?


I would imagine that to somebody who has lived there for the last six or eight years, 21 feet low looks dang near at flood stage..

http://www.waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/individual/buchanan


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

I was just thinking the same thing. But almost full was the description.

just the same im gonna give benefit of the doubt to him over a website database


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

txbred said:


> I was just thinking the same thing. But almost full was the description.
> 
> just the same im gonna give benefit of the doubt to him over a website database


full is 1020 - will not get there - but should be over 1000 which is awesome


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

right i dont think he meant the 1020 line. But within 5 to 10 is usually considered full for that lake. id assume its getting close to that mark.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

txbred said:


> right i dont think he meant the 1020 line. But within 5 to 10 is usually considered full for that lake. id assume its getting close to that mark.


true - whatever it ends up it is great


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

yes this water is gonna bring great times for many people.


----------



## oOslikOo (Jul 13, 2010)

txbred said:


> yes this water is gonna bring great times for many people.


 Hopefully it will bring income to people downstream, while the DB that is grayson watches and has a mealtdown. By all means he needs wash his Mercedes when gets home from his office job.


----------



## Shaky (May 21, 2004)

grayson said:


> water into fields to kill weeds


You have said this same statement over and over, and if you want to keep showing your complete ignorance, by all means keep using it. A smarter man would learn a bit more about what he's talking about though.

(I know guys, I'm trying to edumicate a liberal. Just couldn't stand it any longer!)hwell:


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

dude seriously. if you have beef with someone on this forum, dont attach that **** to my post. i stayed out of all yalls bs for a reason. just post your disapproval and leave me out.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

Shaky said:


> You have said this same statement over and over, and if you want to keep showing your complete ignorance, by all means keep using it. A smarter man would learn a bit more about what he's talking about though.
> 
> (I know guys, I'm trying to edumicate a liberal. Just couldn't stand it any longer!)hwell:


Now that is funny - yeah I am way liberal - clueless


----------



## Mr. Saltwater (Oct 5, 2012)

txbred said:


> yea well i cant argue, im not there. Just heard fom someone that is there. he said its almost full. I think he actually saw it since he lives on the lake.
> 
> Are you there?


No I'm not there and not looking to argue. Just glad to see the level coming up quick.


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

Mr. Saltwater said:


> No I'm not there and not looking to argue. Just glad to see the level coming up quick.


yea im not either. i wasnt given a depth or any value. just a generic "almost full". I was wondering if maybe you had a better idea than a website, which may have a delay.


----------



## Mr. Saltwater (Oct 5, 2012)

This website may give more up to date data.

http://hydromet.lcra.org/full.aspx


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Or, you could just go to the horse's mouth: USGS gauge site that most of the others use. Updates every fifteen minutes, there should be another level posted in about four minutes.

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/tx/nwis/uv/?site_no=08148000&PARAmeter_cd=00062,72020,00054

Edit: posted the 11:30 reading at 11:38.


----------



## Tha Water Guy (Oct 25, 2012)

Another good link:

http://hydromet.lcra.org/riverreport/


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

oOslikOo said:


> Hopefully it will bring income to people downstream, while the DB that is grayson watches and has a mealtdown. By all means he needs wash his Mercedes when gets home from his office job.


Just to clear up one assumption....he drives an F-150. He does work out of an office, a business he built from the ground up himself. I know I'll catch the usual BS for standing up for a friend, and that's fine, flame away, but he's one Helluva guy I'm glad to know and call a friend. The guy goes way above and beyond to help others. I've seen him host hunts for Wounded Warriors, come to the very back of the ranch to help me in a bind when we had one of our all time bucks on the ground in another area that needed retrieving, and numerous other examples I could post.......

I guess my point is.....hell, nevermind.....flame away, I can take it.....


----------



## SSST (Jun 9, 2011)

We had a deer lease around Tow right across the FM road from Lake Buchanan, it was crazy watching the lake get smaller and smaller each year. Back in 1990 and about the first 5-6 years it backed up into our place, by the time we left about 6 yrs ago the water was 1/2 mile away. Great news.


----------



## smokinguntoo (Mar 28, 2012)

Tow - rhymes with the pow in pow-wow. I used to hang out there some as a teen. Fond memories of an old 10 HP Johnson and rented boats. We caught a lot of whites and channel cats. Pre-internet you could call the LCRA in Austin and get the generating times at the lakes. If they were generating we'd head for the dam. 

Looks like the lake is up about 6 ft. from pre storm. At least they can probably see water now from Tow giving the illusion of a full lake. Probably another 3-5 feet in store for the lake before the inflow dwindles.

SG2


----------



## oOslikOo (Jul 13, 2010)

BretE said:


> Just to clear up one assumption....he drives an F-150. He does work out of an office, a business he built from the ground up himself. I know I'll catch the usual BS for standing up for a friend, and that's fine, flame away, but he's one Helluva guy I'm glad to know and call a friend. The guy goes way above and beyond to help others. I've seen him host hunts for Wounded Warriors, come to the very back of the ranch to help me in a bind when we had one of our all time bucks on the ground in another area that needed retrieving, and numerous other examples I could post.......
> 
> I guess my point is.....hell, nevermind.....flame away, I can take it.....


 He does sound like a great guy and if he is a friend of yours I know he is. I'm glad he's been able to fulfill the American dream, I really am. But at the same time it rubs me the wrong way when you know dozens of people personally (some friends others casually) that have been hit by this not to mention the many more that were. Mind you some have a business as well just as Grayson does that was built from the ground up. People say grow other crops, like every crop grows the same in every soil type. If it worked like that we wouldn't even be having this discussion. People say the water is wasted, no it's not. It ends up in the very bays that obviously most on this board like to fish in. It's not just the farmer takin a hit. It goes all the way down to a guy that works at the dryer and lives in a town that wouldn't exist without the rice industry. I apologize to both you and Grayson.


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

oOslikOo said:


> He does sound like a great guy and if he is a friend of yours I know he is. I'm glad he's been able to fulfill the American dream, I really am. But at the same time it rubs me the wrong way when you know dozens of people personally (some friends others casually) that have been hit by this not to mention the many more that were. Mind you some have a business as well just as Grayson does that was built from the ground up. People say grow other crops, like every crop grows the same in every soil type. If it worked like that we wouldn't even be having this discussion. People say the water is wasted, no it's not. It ends up in the very bays that obviously most on this board like to fish in. It's not just the farmer takin a hit. It goes all the way down to a guy that works at the dryer and lives in a town that wouldn't exist without the rice industry. I apologize to both you and Grayson.


No apology necessary, I just think a lot of the man and wanted to clear up any misconceptions. He's like a lot of us here, very passionate about some things......no hard feelings here, have a good one!


----------



## Big Guns 1971 (Nov 7, 2013)

BretE said:


> No apology necessary, I just think a lot of the man and wanted to clear up any misconceptions. He's like a lot of us here, very passionate about some things......no hard feelings here, have a good one!


Glad you got that one settled... Way to go.....


----------



## oOslikOo (Jul 13, 2010)

Big Guns 1971 said:


> Glad you got that one settled... Way to go.....


Yay, another city dweller joined the party. Not settled, just have a lot of respect for BretE.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

oOslikOo said:


> He does sound like a great guy and if he is a friend of yours I know he is. I'm glad he's been able to fulfill the American dream, I really am. But at the same time it rubs me the wrong way when you know dozens of people personally (some friends others casually) that have been hit by this not to mention the many more that were. Mind you some have a business as well just as Grayson does that was built from the ground up. People say grow other crops, like every crop grows the same in every soil type. If it worked like that we wouldn't even be having this discussion. People say the water is wasted, no it's not. It ends up in the very bays that obviously most on this board like to fish in. It's not just the farmer takin a hit. It goes all the way down to a guy that works at the dryer and lives in a town that wouldn't exist without the rice industry. I apologize to both you and Grayson.


I keep promising Brete I will get off this forum because I get way to passionate about things. So I am going to do my best to keep my promise this time.

I know it affects folks downstream. But I too have many friends right here where the lakes are who have suffered greatly. Many have lost businesses, homes, etc. because not only was there not much water in the lakes, LCRA was draining the lakes by selling it to folks miles away. Cannot tell you how many businesses on the lakes have gone under in the past 3-4 years because there was no water. So when people who are actually on the lakes watch the lakes dry up as it is released downstream, they cannot help but get upset. No bad people in all this - just bad circumstances.

Truth is I wish there was enough water for everyone to use even in drought conditions but it is just not the case and never will be going forward. Central Texas is being over run with new people and like it or not, it will continue. So again, I was defending my friends and turf as many of you were for you area - all very understandable. Just pray the rain keeps falling and everyone prospers. And I apologize for getting too vocal about this stuff


----------



## sargentmajor (Sep 13, 2012)

I was on the upper end this morning ...lots of sick catfish on the surface swimming around.Couldnt decide what bait to use so ended up throwing a black dip net....smile


----------



## TexasVines (Jan 5, 2012)

well I was wring and glad to be wrong

I said it might hit 61%......it has probably already hit 66% full now and probably will go well beyond that maybe close to 68% or more 

still a ways to go, but building up in the summer months sure beats going down in the summer months


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

Bass fishing on Travis and Buchanan should be outstanding in a year and a half or so with all that flooded brush. Crappie probably sooner than that.


----------



## skinnywaterfishin (Jul 1, 2015)

69%!!!

http://www.waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/individual/buchanan


----------



## Oyster Dog (May 21, 2005)

skinnywaterfishin said:


> 69%!!!
> 
> http://www.waterdatafortexas.org/reservoirs/individual/buchanan


It rose almost 8 feet in the past week!


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Just saw this on FB, thought of this thread and wanted to share.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

them boys finally quit measuring their peckers, now you gonna get them all fired up again!


----------



## TexasVines (Jan 5, 2012)

wow good luck using that ramp that will be like boating on Pinkston or Murval


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

That's a real shame when you get dirt roads off the bottom end of a boat ramp..


----------

