# River trivia



## Sunbeam (Feb 24, 2009)

Just a few interesting facts about the current river flow.

In 1990 the river at Oakwood crested at 67,300 cubic feet per second (cfs). That is the greatest flow recorded since the gauges were installed. Not sure how long they have been in operation but I do know they were used to determine the flows when the Livingston dam was designed in the late 1950's.

Yesterday the Oakwood gauge crested at 58,500. And there are five days of rain forecast in the next eight.

During that 1990 event the maximum dam release was 88,000 cfs. The flow at the 59 bridge was 94,700 cfs. The 6,700 difference was water entering the river from Long King Creek just above the bridge.

The water under the 59 bridge is 30.05 feet deep today and will increase since the flow at the dam was increased to 43,800 today.

The current rise in not yet a modern day record but it is definitely in the top three. If we get the rain fall now predicted this will easily become the new record.


----------



## dbullard (Feb 13, 2008)

That is a lot of water SB. I sure wish they could get some of the water on the upper Colorado. It sure would be nice to see Lake Buchanan and Travis come up.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

dbullard said:


> That is a lot of water SB. I sure wish they could get some of the water on the upper Colorado. It sure would be nice to see Lake Buchanan and Travis come up.


Very true Dwayne. I have looked at many basins and the Colorado just didn't get it.

SB - I have watched this event closer than any in a long time. One thing throwing me is the timing on the crest at different points. The rain was so widespread that it is not a simple fast slug running down like many I have watched before.


----------



## wwind3 (Sep 30, 2009)

Thanx for all the great info you post on L Livingston Sunbeam---it is greatly appreciated. And the other guys too--I started fishing Livingston when it first was fishable and finally moved here 5 yrs ago. Used to launch at Big John's, Stanfords, Galloways, etc when I fished club tournaments.

I started so long ago I caught 10 bass one day out of a 12 ft Ouachita with a 9.8 Merc chunkin' a Hawaiian Wiggler. 
Me and a buddy launched at Stanfords one day---south wind--muddy/clear line right as you got in the lake. Decided to throw some Hotspots into the mud and drag 'em back. Caught 14-wishing I was fishing a tourney.

Keep up the good work.


----------



## Little Mac (Apr 29, 2015)

Livingston is releasing 53000 cfs this morning


----------



## Bankin' On It (Feb 14, 2013)

Sunbeam said:


> The water under the 59 bridge is 30.05 feet deep today and will increase since the flow at the dam was increased to 43,800 today.


Very interesting stuff SB. About an hour after your post I snapped this pic. This is what 30.05 feet looks like...


----------



## Bankin' On It (Feb 14, 2013)

...and here was the dam around the same time:


----------



## stuckinfreeport (Sep 13, 2012)

LL will be flowing big time for a while. Richland came up over 10 ft the last couple of months and is discharging 50,000 into the Trinity.


----------



## WGA1 (Mar 1, 2012)

This is a picture of my place near Liberty on an oxbow lake off the river. The release was about 15k CFS when that picture was taken this past winter. Currently the water is all the way up to the house but not under it yet. In 1994 the water got up to the fourth step on the house. This is the biggest flood we have had in many, many years. It will be interesting to see how high it continues to get.


----------



## Ragecajun (Oct 31, 2011)

*I Agree*



dbullard said:


> That is a lot of water SB. I sure wish they could get some of the water on the upper Colorado. It sure would be nice to see Lake Buchanan and Travis come up.


I checked Buchanan today and it is only 39.7% full..


----------



## GBird (Jun 12, 2010)

We were in the area today so I stopped on the bridge and took a couple of shots to share. I beleive that the dam is releasing 53,000 cfs at this time at mid day. People were sitting in a chair on the top of Browders west ramp and fishing in the creek. The only boats that I saw were behind some willow trees tied and hiding from the current. I am 12 miles from the river below the dam and it is just a pounding rain here now, no signs of letting up.


----------



## Little Mac (Apr 29, 2015)

Livingston is releasing 55600 cfs


----------



## FISHROADIE (Apr 2, 2010)

I remember the flood back in 1990 I drove up to the dam on 59. The railroad crews were out on the railroad bridge at 59, checking it out to see if it was OK. I drove up to the dam and there were guys with long rods at the fence standing on picnic tables. The water was right up to the top of the tables, the guys were catching 20 to 40 pound blue cats. They were casting over the fence and fishing on the part of dam were the grass grows. It was scary seeing all that water come thru the gates.


----------



## TXyakker (Aug 18, 2005)

So i have what might be a silly question, to those who are more knowledgeable about all these reservoirs, dams, etc. 

With all this rain, and reservoirs being below their capacity, why is so much water being let out of the gates instead of letting the lakes build back up? Have the low levels lured people into building down the banks, to where they would now be flooded if the lakes were allowed to fill back up a bit? 

I never grew up on a lake nor do i have much knowledge on this stuff, and thus my question. It seems to me that it would be better to let the lakes fill back up some, and then the water could be used for longer instead of opening the dam gates and letting it all escape. 

Hope thats not too boneheaded of a question...


----------



## Danny O (Apr 14, 2010)

From Polk County News today.

Water Level and Release at Lake Livingston Dam...
As of Monday morning May 18, 2015, current Lake Livingston level is 132.79 msl (mean sea level) which is 1.79 feet above the normal pool level of 131.00 msl. Release is 55,600 cfs (cubic feet per second, 1 cubic foot of water = 7.48 gallons). This lake level and corresponding release is in response to rainfall within the Trinity River watershed which includes local rainfall along with that from the Dallas, Fort Worth area and up to the headwaters of the river including all tributaries. Releases from the Livingston Dam do not exceed the 24 hour inflow meaning water is not released that would not normally be moving downstream if the dam were not here. This release procedure is designed to mimic nature as closely as possible and accounts for the temporary increase in the lake level while utilizing flowage easement for storage capacity.

Flows of this level have not been recorded on Lake Livingston since October of 2009. Lake level and discharge information is updated on a 24 hour recorded information line at the dam which is 936-365-3922 or on the Trinity River Authority webpage at www.trinityra.org . Residents along the Trinity River should contact their Emergency Management Coordinator in the county they reside in for flood related information.


----------



## Bankin' On It (Feb 14, 2013)

TXyakker said:


> So i have what might be a silly question, to those who are more knowledgeable about all these reservoirs, dams, etc.
> 
> With all this rain, *and reservoirs being below their capacity*, why is so much water being let out of the gates instead of letting the lakes build back up? Have the low levels lured people into building down the banks, to where they would now be flooded if the lakes were allowed to fill back up a bit?
> 
> ...


That's just it. The lake is over filled right now not under capacity. Folks docks are gonna float away. I heard a few boats stored a Beacon Bay floated out of their stalls. No good news downstream though. Build an ark.


----------



## BKT (Sep 27, 2013)

Kinda off topic but I've always wondered. What is the max cfs that can be released from Livingston dam?

I grabbed this photo off facebook. Trinity River at Dallas







[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## shadslinger (Aug 21, 2005)

I bet Sunbeam knows the max flow rate.

I remember the 1990 big flow, it was crazy good fishing for everything after the gates shut back and the water slowly drained out of the basin.
There was a line of willows on the west bank that are gone now. They were 30 feet tall and had plenty of shade under them.
After the river basin filled up and they cut the gates back we would go across to the west side and beach the boat under the willows on a fine sand bank and murder the white bass and crappie casting tandem jigs up under and around the willow trees. Limits of crappie and white bass any time you went on tandem white lead head crappie jigs.
If you were lucky you would land the 6 plus LMB that slam your jigs every once and a while. They would usually straighten the hook though.
Or you could cast a Bomber Model A crayfish crank bait and catch them on purpose, bumping the sand in 6' of water around cover.


----------



## MrTroutsnot (Dec 6, 2012)

I ask a TRA employee this morning and he stated around 300k but if they did Liberty would cease to exist. He said for the most part they try to match inflow as if the lake was not here.


----------



## TXyakker (Aug 18, 2005)

Thanks Bankin' On It! That makes total sense as to why they'd be "letting the flood gates open" as they say, haha, for that lake. I got another bit of information from another guy giving me a little geography lesson too, explaining the ground make up between Livingston (east Texas) and back here in central Texas. Once I read that, it was kind of a light bulb moment. A "well, yea, that totally makes sense" kind of moment. That, and i didn't realize Livingston was full. I assumed that most places around Texas were running low, the way things around around here in central Texas. Thus, my curiosity about why they were letting all the water escape! 

Somebody needs to engineer something to send all that extra water back towards Central Texas. Some Roman aquifer type thing! haha. I know they'd appreciate it out here...


----------



## Bankin' On It (Feb 14, 2013)

TXyakker said:


> Thanks Bankin' On It! That makes total sense as to why they'd be "letting the flood gates open" as they say, haha, for that lake. I got another bit of information from another guy giving me a little geography lesson too, explaining the ground make up between Livingston (east Texas) and back here in central Texas. Once I read that, it was kind of a light bulb moment. A "well, yea, that totally makes sense" kind of moment. That, and i didn't realize Livingston was full. I assumed that most places around Texas were running low, the way things around around here in central Texas. Thus, my curiosity about why they were letting all the water escape!
> 
> Somebody needs to engineer something to send all that extra water back towards Central Texas. Some Roman aquifer type thing! haha. I know they'd appreciate it out here...


Yep. I work in the utility field. We lay that type of stuff. We're laying some of the segments coming out of Lake Conroe and down to the Woodlands. In my meetings with the engineers we have discussed this very topic. According to them, there are already plans in development to run a line from Lake Livingston to Lake Conroe as well as trunk lines to surrounding lakes. They want to become more efficient in collecting water for Texas due to the influx of new residents by filling the lakes. Sounds good on paper. We'll see.


----------



## Fishin' Soldier (Dec 25, 2007)

Water is up to the bottom of the railroad tracks in Liberty. Everything is flooded. If they let much more out its gonna cause some problems.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

TXyakker said:


> Thanks Bankin' On It! That makes total sense as to why they'd be "letting the flood gates open" as they say, haha, for that lake. I got another bit of information from another guy giving me a little geography lesson too, explaining the ground make up between Livingston (east Texas) and back here in central Texas. Once I read that, it was kind of a light bulb moment. A "well, yea, that totally makes sense" kind of moment. That, and i didn't realize Livingston was full. I assumed that most places around Texas were running low, the way things around around here in central Texas. Thus, my curiosity about why they were letting all the water escape!
> 
> Somebody needs to engineer something to send all that extra water back towards Central Texas. Some Roman aquifer type thing! haha. I know they'd appreciate it out here...


I read an article interviewing a State Rep. from East Texas that is on the committee responsible for water rights. In a nutshell he said lots of folks from Central Texas to California have asked and would love to pipe some East Texas water to their Cities. We do have lots of it that gets dumped to the Gulf most every year. Now here comes the catch, you know the reason why no one will spend the *billions* of dollars needed to construct the pipeline. There is a provision in the State Constitution that grants ownership of the water to the particular watershed involved and gives first rights to that watershed. This means that let's say San Antonio pays for a pipeline from Lake X to their City and purchases _____ amount of water annually. If a dry spell comes and Lake X cannot provide that amount of water without cutting back locally guess whose expensive pipeline just went dry? Or say the region around Lake X grows and in 30 years needs more water, same thing no matter what the local water shed will be served first and that high dollar pipe line would sit empty.

No one outside the particular watershed will spend that kind of capital on a project without a guaranty of getting the water and State water laws will not allow for that guaranty.


----------



## Bankin' On It (Feb 14, 2013)

SeaOx 230C said:


> I read an article interviewing a State Rep. from East Texas that is on the committee responsible for water rights. In a nutshell he said lots of folks from Central Texas to California have asked and would love to pipe some East Texas water to their Cities. We do have lots of it that gets dumped to the Gulf most every year. Now here comes the catch, you know the reason why no one will spend the *billions* of dollars needed to construct the pipeline. There is a provision in the State Constitution that grants ownership of the water to the particular watershed involved and gives first rights to that watershed. This means that let's say San Antonio pays for a pipeline from Lake X to their City and purchases _____ amount of water annually. If a dry spell comes and Lake X cannot provide that amount of water without cutting back locally guess whose expensive pipeline just went dry? Or say the region around Lake X grows and in 30 years needs more water, same thing no matter what the local water shed will be served first and that high dollar pipe line would sit empty.
> 
> No one outside the particular watershed will spend that kind of capital on a project without a guaranty of getting the water and State water laws will not allow for that guaranty.


Sounds pretty sticky. It sure would be nice if they could figure it out. Plenty of work and better lakes for all. They need to figure out a way to make it work in Texas first before they consider out of state IMHO. Shoot, I wouldn't even consider out of state due to the complexities.


----------



## Sunbeam (Feb 24, 2009)

In reply as to the maximum flow possible from LL dam here is a theoretical reply.

The gate bottom sill is 34 feet below the 131.0 elevation. One gate open from the bottom with 34 feet head pressure allows 1000 cubic feet a second to flow through the opening. (+/- a few cf). 
If the lake level was at 131.0 and all gates were opened to the maximum 34 feet then the initial flow would be 408,000 cfs.
But that flow would quickly start to decrease as the lake level dropped as the head pressure decreased.
It would require some real rocket science mathematics to calculate how much the flow would decrease as the lake emptied.
I have always understood that the gate system was designed to handle three times the maximum 100 year river rise or some where around 300,000 cfs.
The gate closure was in early October 1968. It has not been a 100 years but the maximum flow to date is 88,000 cfs in June 1990. We will need to wait until 2068 to see if the 1990 storm was the Redd Foxx "big one"
.


----------



## Crusader (Jan 31, 2014)

SeaOx 230C said:


> There is a provision in the State Constitution that grants ownership of the water to the particular watershed involved and gives first rights to that watershed. This means that let's say San Antonio pays for a pipeline from Lake X to their City and purchases _____ amount of water annually. If a dry spell comes and Lake X cannot provide that amount of water without cutting back locally guess whose expensive pipeline just went dry?


Do guys in San Antonio want *excess* water from Trinity watershed or simply "water on regular basis no matter what"? Former is relatively easy, latter is probably not gonna happen.
Besides, what is an "excess water" -- gulf system needs freshwater too and all those species evolved in conditions where from time to time a flood like this is supposed to happen (gar for example needs them to spawn). Some of them are probably dependent on it.


----------



## TXyakker (Aug 18, 2005)

All good points there. I'm more of a logical thinker, but I can't speak for San Antonio as a whole , but the *excess* water during times like these makes sense to me. I don't think its fair to try and take water from another area when everyone is taxing the water supply (i.e. during drought times). Human nature would likely have people getting greedy though, and calling for demand of water all the time, which would be ridiculous.

The pipeline being installed and then possibly going dry, thus sitting there useless, also is an easily seen problem, so I can understand the lack of push to get one of those made.

I was just kind of thinking out loud, not really exercising much brain power on the logistics, haha. It was more of a "it would be cool to somehow harness and redistribute all this excess water instead of having people flood out or wasting it down to the bay." Then again, like Crusader mentioned, the bay needs a little fresh water rinse now and then I reckon.


----------



## markbrumbaugh (Jul 13, 2010)

Selfishly, the last thing we need on livingston is for anyone else to have water rights that could drain the lake. It happens enough as it is. I dont even trust that hydro plant! 
On the other hand....does San Antonio want the 700 cfs toilet flush from Dallas? It we could get rid of that, and keep the rest, i may be willing to talk.


----------



## markbrumbaugh (Jul 13, 2010)

TXyakker said:


> All good points there. I'm more of a logical thinker, but I can't speak for San Antonio as a whole , but the *excess* water during times like these makes sense to me. I don't think its fair to try and take water from another area when everyone is taxing the water supply (i.e. during drought times). Human nature would likely have people getting greedy though, and calling for demand of water all the time, which would be ridiculous.
> 
> The pipeline being installed and then possibly going dry, thus sitting there useless, also is an easily seen problem, so I can understand the lack of push to get one of those made.
> 
> I was just kind of thinking out loud, not really exercising much brain power on the logistics, haha. It was more of a "it would be cool to somehow harness and redistribute all this excess water instead of having people flood out or wasting it down to the bay." Then again, like Crusader mentioned, the bay needs a little fresh water rinse now and then I reckon.


Dont worry, when you are my age, you will think more clearly. At least for a few years.


----------



## wwind3 (Sep 30, 2009)

Dunno know about the pipeline---Dunno know about 100 yr stuff but I do know we are almost 2 ft high now on L Livingston and in Twin Harbors around the boat ramp it is bulkhead high and in a few folk's yards. Livingston is not a flood control structure.

I also remember couple yrs ago the lake was 4 ft low and my boat was trapped in the boathouse for about 6 months it seems and the corn I was feeding the ducks sprouted and I had a cornstalk on my "beach"..

Anyone know how high the lake has been? Previous owner said it was in his yard--My elevation is about 145 ft I think at my house...scary if the water was halfway up to the house like he said.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

TXyakker said:


> All good points there. I'm more of a logical thinker, but I can't speak for San Antonio as a whole , but the *excess* water during times like these makes sense to me. I don't think its fair to try and take water from another area when everyone is taxing the water supply (i.e. during drought times). Human nature would likely have people getting greedy though, and calling for demand of water all the time, which would be ridiculous.
> 
> The pipeline being installed and then possibly going dry, thus sitting there useless, also is an easily seen problem, so I can understand the lack of push to get one of those made.
> 
> I was just kind of thinking out loud, not really exercising much brain power on the logistics, haha. It was more of a "it would be cool to somehow harness and redistribute all this excess water instead of having people flood out or wasting it down to the bay." Then again, like Crusader mentioned, the bay needs a little fresh water rinse now and then I reckon.


LOL I used San Antonio just as an example,I did not notice you were in San Antonio. If I remember correctly in the interview the State Rep. mentioned several different cities.

I believe there are already provisions in place for a certain amount of water to sent down to the bay. I don't remember how much but I bet some one on here knows.


----------



## Ken.Huynh (May 30, 2014)

Man WGA. That look so awesome and peaceful. Would love to have a place like that when i am retired.


----------



## Kenner Ben (Apr 23, 2013)

This article is from the Chronicle in 2007. According to the article, the lake reached it's highest level ever in 1994 at 134.3 feet.

http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Lake-Livingston-flooding-likely-to-worsen-1561544.php


----------



## Sunbeam (Feb 24, 2009)

If my old memory serves me right TRA purchased the land up to the 135.0 elevation.
Waterfront owners can use the land between their deeded property from the 135.0 mark down to the 131.0 waterline but can not build habitable structures or septic systems in the area.
TRA can flood the land up to the 135.0 mark without being held responsible for any damage.
In the many meeting with TRA in the early 70's i can assure you that their position was and still is that LL is not a flood control reservoir. It is a "flow of the river" impoundment.
Easy come.......... easy go.


----------



## GBird (Jun 12, 2010)

In the future their will be 3 generators producing at this flow.


----------



## WGA1 (Mar 1, 2012)

The common mind set of the people in the bottoms down around Liberty is that the employees operating the dam like to flood everyone downstream in order to protect the expensive houses upstream. I know that is not the case as Sunbeam has explained but you will never convince them otherwise. Flooding is sometimes just a fact of life in a river bottom and you best get use to it or move out. 

My concern is the lack of water in the future during the summer months. I don't know if, or by how much, the Luce Bayou Project will decrease water flows downstream.


----------



## Crusader (Jan 31, 2014)

markbrumbaugh said:


> Dont worry, when you are my age, you will think more clearly. At least for a few years.


You *think* you think more clearly, but with time you give up on this illusion too...


----------



## wwind3 (Sep 30, 2009)

Saw on TV last nite that Dayton Lake Estates is getting bad.

Thanx for info on the record lake level....


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

When at Browder's 3278 Marina as example, just looking at customers, is there ever any doubt which are lake people and which are river people? 
:walkingsm
I get along with all of them fine, just saying .....


----------



## Bankin' On It (Feb 14, 2013)

Whitebassfisher said:


> When at Browder's 3278 Marina as example, just looking at customers, is there ever any doubt which are lake people and which are river people?
> :walkingsm
> I get along with all of them fine, just saying .....


Yep. I'm pretty sure one of dem river folks floated away with my boat way back when too. You know...going purely off looks.
#Science


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

Whitebassfisher said:


> When at Browder's 3278 Marina as example, just looking at customers, is there ever any doubt which are lake people and which are river people?
> :walkingsm
> I get along with all of them fine, just saying .....


Speaking as one that has lived within a mile or two of the river most of his live I might resemble that remark....:rotfl::rotfl::brew2:


----------



## Fishin' Soldier (Dec 25, 2007)

Trinity at hwy 90. Out of its banks.


----------



## kellisag (Feb 18, 2010)

Whitebassfisher said:


> When at Browder's 3278 Marina as example, just looking at customers, *is there ever any doubt which are lake people and which are river people*?
> :walkingsm
> I get along with all of them fine, just saying .....


 You ain't lying!


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

kellisag said:


> You ain't lying!


High Class people..... Man if I had any feelings they might be hurt LOL.... :rybka:

Want to add I'm just kidding at my own expense, I am quite proud of my River Bottom/Big Thicket heritage. I think you high ground folks are just jealous!!!!


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

SeaOx 230C said:


> High Class people..... Man if I had any feelings they might be hurt LOL.... :rybka:
> 
> Want to add I'm just kidding at my own expense, I am quite proud of my River Bottom/Big Thicket heritage. I think you high ground folks are just jealous!!!!


Since the OP was river trivia, I hope I didn't hijack. I have spent my life chasing spawning whites so have spent a little time on the river. I had in-laws who lived in the river bottom. Never a problem and no insult intended.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

Whitebassfisher said:


> Since the OP was river trivia, I hope I didn't hijack. I have spent my life chasing spawning whites so have spent a little time on the river. I had in-laws who lived in the river bottom. Never a problem and no insult intended.


No seriously I was just playing along no insult was perceived by me at all, not for one second. I apologize if it seemed that way.

Foot, even my own wife makes fun of me about it. She laughs when we go buy crawfish from some folks in town that are cousins from some where.

Let's just say they fit the river bottom stereo type to "T". She thinks it's funny when I get around them, says my accent and the way I pronounce words changes.


----------



## Sunbeam (Feb 24, 2009)

A friend who lives in the bottoms near Romayor reported on Face Book that she was sitting on her elevated home front porch enjoying the sunshine. So were the three large gators sunning on her new blacktopped drive way.


----------



## BKT (Sep 27, 2013)

A shot of the Trinity off of 787 near Romayor yesterday.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

And what about those huge balls of fire ants that float along in floods just waiting to bump into something? That amazes me.


----------



## TXyakker (Aug 18, 2005)

A little lighter fluid and a match makes a fun show out of those "floating hell pods".... hahaha!


----------



## BKT (Sep 27, 2013)

Since the thread is titled "river triva", has the lock and dam at Hwy 7 ever been functional? If so, when.


----------

