# Future of Waterfowl on The Rice Prairies West of Houston



## 3rdcst

The prediction of an El Nino this fall and winter hints at the possibility of the prolonged drought ending. The Highland Lakes will get much needed run-off and The LCRA will sell water to Wharton Colorado and Matagorda Counties. There is also the off site reservoir being planned downstream of Wharton that all help. That is the good news. 
The truth of the whole thing is that the demand for water keeps increasing. The LCRA is slowly but surely being controlled by the Austin people that own property on the Highland Lakes. The real fight for water will start when the lakes fill back up. These people that are gaining control of the lifeblood of this rice waterfowl symbiosis could care less about waterfowl. I urge the waterfowl community to educate themselves on this issue.


----------



## Swampstomper

El Nino will bring welcome relief if it happens. Forecasters are giving it a little better than 50/50 chance it will happen. Some say it may be a major event.

Lots of info. on the LCRA website. They,re about to have a meeting about the 2014 Water Conservation Plan and there,s a place to submit comments on the website.

Garwood is again the only irrigation district getting rice water this year. That water could be cut off if the drought reaches a historic level determined by LCRA.

They just approved another 17 Million for the Lane City Resevior in Wharton County. Supposed to be completed in 2017.

Come on El Nino.


----------



## GunDog

It is just a wait and see game right now with no acre feet limits set since LCRA jacked them up and TCEQ could not make a decision. At least with no limit set it at least gives us some hope that the 1.2 million mark will not become a reality.


----------



## Johnny9

I will believe it when I see my rain guage over flowing.


----------



## chicken fried

In the past 30 years farmers are getting fewer and fewer which affects waterfowl. Hopefully they can keep the farmers in business.


----------



## fouL-n-fin

juan said:


> I will believe it when I see my rain guage over flowing.


X2

F-n-F

Sent from my stolen iPhone 5!


----------



## 4thbreak

Anyone else find it ironic that a liberal utopia such as Austin eliminates the rice farming community, all while preaching sustainability and conservation that goes along with their feel good agenda? I guess as long as they can drive their Prius, shop at whole foods, ride their bike through traffic, and embrace their smugness, screw everyone else. At least they don't waste much water for personal hygiene.


----------



## Drundel

4thbreak said:


> Anyone else find it ironic that a liberal utopia such as Austin eliminates the rice farming community, all while preaching sustainability and conservation that goes along with their feel good agenda? I guess as long as they can drive their Prius, shop at whole foods, ride their bike through traffic, and embrace their smugness, screw everyone else. At least they don't waste much water for personal hygiene.


They are a scary bunch, see below.

https://www.facebook.com/CentralTexasWaterCoalition


----------



## reload56

I don't think it is the environmentalists that are the problem, It is the folks trying to keep their lawns green and the automobiles clean. But the main issue is the extended drought that may or may not be related to global warming.


----------



## Rancher86

I live in Austin and have several friends that ranch/live near the highland lakes. They are down to 30% or less capacity. So these lakes being the main watersource for central texas, I think it's a little more pressing of an issue up here than downstream for the rice farmers that make up a tiny, tiny portion of rice production and consumption in this country. I understand that duck hunters love those fields, and the colorado provides the water for those fields, but we're in dire straits up here. In my opinion, it would take 10 very wet years for the lakes to fill back up. Personally I don't think they ever will in our lifetime. Heck, just last month, where the colorado dumps into lake Buchanan (the uppermost and largest highland lake), I ranch in the area, and we got 3-8" of rain, hard rain at times, good run-off rain, and Buchanan only picked up 3% of it's capacity. Rice farming in Texas is such a minor agricultural benefit, that in my opinion it's basically null. We could do without it and no one would notice one thing in the grocery stores. However, peoples livelihood depends on that water so it's sad that they are getting cut out. But with so many people in the Austin/Highland lake area now, it's not practical or logical or feasible to keep releasing water downstream. I know countless fishing guides up here that have been put out of business due to the low water. So the LCRA, rightfully so, should hold onto every drop of water we have up here b/c there is no guarantee the lakes will fill back up even to 50%. It would take A LOT of rain, over many years. It's a sad situation, but the fact is there's 1.5+ million people up here depending on that water, so why should the LCRA keep sending what we have left downstream to the rice farmers, who make up less than 1% of the states agricultural production? It's just the way of the world, as much as it might suck. And as for the duck hunters and their concern of the ducks habitat, I don't really care to hear whining about that issue. They can go hunt other places. I think a water supply for 1.5 million people is a little more important than duck hunting and even rice farming. 
Don't mean to offend anyone, just giving y'all a perspective of someone who lives up here.
And I'm not some typical Austin hippie d-bag, who "drives a prius", although they are everywhere here. I'm a cattle rancher who lives in Austin and drives a smoke dumping Cummins diesel truck. Do some research on how "productive" and how big of a market share the rice farmers have.... it's minuscule.


----------



## DUKFVR

Rancher86 said:


> I live in Austin and have several friends that ranch/live near the highland lakes. They are down to 30% or less capacity. So these lakes being the main watersource for central texas, I think it's a little more pressing of an issue up here than downstream for the rice farmers that make up a tiny, tiny portion of rice production and consumption in this country. I understand that duck hunters love those fields, and the colorado provides the water for those fields, but we're in dire straits up here. In my opinion, it would take 10 very wet years for the lakes to fill back up. Personally I don't think they ever will in our lifetime. Heck, just last month, where the colorado dumps into lake Buchanan (the uppermost and largest highland lake), I ranch in the area, and we got 3-8" of rain, hard rain at times, good run-off rain, and Buchanan only picked up 3% of it's capacity. Rice farming in Texas is such a minor agricultural benefit, that in my opinion it's basically null. We could do without it and no one would notice one thing in the grocery stores. However, peoples livelihood depends on that water so it's sad that they are getting cut out. But with so many people in the Austin/Highland lake area now, it's not practical or logical or feasible to keep releasing water downstream. I know countless fishing guides up here that have been put out of business due to the low water. So the LCRA, rightfully so, should hold onto every drop of water we have up here b/c there is no guarantee the lakes will fill back up even to 50%. It would take A LOT of rain, over many years. It's a sad situation, but the fact is there's 1.5+ million people up here depending on that water, so why should the LCRA keep sending what we have left downstream to the rice farmers, who make up less than 1% of the states agricultural production? It's just the way of the world, as much as it might suck. And as for the duck hunters and their concern of the ducks habitat, I don't really care to hear whining about that issue. They can go hunt other places. I think a water supply for 1.5 million people is a little more important than duck hunting and even rice farming.
> Don't mean to offend anyone, just giving y'all a perspective of someone who lives up here.
> And I'm not some typical Austin hippie d-bag, who "drives a prius", although they are everywhere here. I'm a cattle rancher who lives in Austin and drives a smoke dumping Cummins diesel truck. Do some research on how "productive" and how big of a market share the rice farmers have.... it's minuscule.


 Well I hope the drought continues & you have to sell your herd. Then you & all the fruits in Austin can move & be without income like my Friends that are rice farmers.


----------



## daddyeaux

Typical response from the irresponsible yuppies around Austin areas. Please don't take our water, we can't ride our jet skiis, run our bass boats or water ski every weekend. We don't know who raises the crops that feed us but we don't care either. What do these yuppies contribute to the states economy? I would be willing to bet the rice industry and the duck and goose hunting industry contribute a lot more to the state's economy than the jet ski and bass boat industry do.
To hell with the rice farmers, they don't mean anything to the state.
I really can't believe that guys inconsiderate post.


----------



## outtotrout09

juan said:


> I will believe it when I see my rain guage over flowing.


Yes Sir!


----------



## oOslikOo

DUKFVR said:


> Well I hope the drought continues & you have to sell your herd. Then you & all the fruits in Austin can move & be without income like my Friends that are rice farmers.


This. It's not only the actual farmer that affected but an entire Rice industry and the communities that were built and sustained around it. Read a deal sometime back that the Rice industry contributes 200 billion to the Texas economy. So to say it's null you would have to be a full blown idot (thats putting it mildly). Then factor how much money is spent during hunting season in the area's towns. there are still people that come from out of state to hunt and putting money in local Texans pockets. I would be willing to bet the Rice Prairie contributes quite a bit more to the Texas economy than the Highland Lake area ranchers do.


----------



## daddyeaux

Maybe he should consider a job in the fast food industry in say upstate New York or Vermont, you know, just for his safety.


----------



## jiginit

Look at ranchers age. I'm sure he has a lot of money invested in his ranch daddy gave him. He** daddy probably bought him that dodge he is so proud of.


----------



## Game-Over

Rancher86 said:


> so why should the LCRA keep sending what we have left downstream to the rice farmers, who make up less than 1% of the states agricultural production?


Because we own it! There are families in the areas we are talking about that have owned Colorado water rights long before Austin blew up. Why do we have to pay for Austin's failure to plan for the future?


----------



## Drundel

Rancher86 said:


> I live in Austin and have several friends that ranch/live near the highland lakes. They are down to 30% or less capacity. So these lakes being the main watersource for central texas, I think it's a little more pressing of an issue up here than downstream for the rice farmers that make up a tiny, tiny portion of rice production and consumption in this country. I understand that duck hunters love those fields, and the colorado provides the water for those fields, but we're in dire straits up here. In my opinion, it would take 10 very wet years for the lakes to fill back up. Personally I don't think they ever will in our lifetime. Heck, just last month, where the colorado dumps into lake Buchanan (the uppermost and largest highland lake), I ranch in the area, and we got 3-8" of rain, hard rain at times, good run-off rain, and Buchanan only picked up 3% of it's capacity. Rice farming in Texas is such a minor agricultural benefit, that in my opinion it's basically null. We could do without it and no one would notice one thing in the grocery stores. However, peoples livelihood depends on that water so it's sad that they are getting cut out. But with so many people in the Austin/Highland lake area now, it's not practical or logical or feasible to keep releasing water downstream. I know countless fishing guides up here that have been put out of business due to the low water. So the LCRA, rightfully so, should hold onto every drop of water we have up here b/c there is no guarantee the lakes will fill back up even to 50%. It would take A LOT of rain, over many years. It's a sad situation, but the fact is there's 1.5+ million people up here depending on that water, so why should the LCRA keep sending what we have left downstream to the rice farmers, who make up less than 1% of the states agricultural production? It's just the way of the world, as much as it might suck. And as for the duck hunters and their concern of the ducks habitat, I don't really care to hear whining about that issue. They can go hunt other places. I think a water supply for 1.5 million people is a little more important than duck hunting and even rice farming.
> Don't mean to offend anyone, just giving y'all a perspective of someone who lives up here.
> And I'm not some typical Austin hippie d-bag, who "drives a prius", although they are everywhere here. I'm a cattle rancher who lives in Austin and drives a smoke dumping Cummins diesel truck. Do some research on how "productive" and how big of a market share the rice farmers have.... it's minuscule.


You know there are no natural lakes in Austin right?


----------



## Rancher86

I see how some of you are angered by my post, but I am by no means a Austin "Yuppie" as one ***** said. I know dozens of fishing guides who have been put out of business b/c the drought. My Ranch is north of the lakes, I run a 15,000 acre operation so I doubt you pricks that say "the lakes will run dry and you will lose your herd" will have any luck with me losing my 600 head cow/calf operation. All my water comes from the 23 wells I have drilled on my property. I'm a 5th generation cattle rancher and really don't give a hell about the Austin liberal d-bags. But how can you argue that is "sensible" to threaten the water source for over 1.5 million people? Do some research on how productive rice farming is and how much it contributes to Texas Agriculture before making idiot remarks like that. Hell, I hate the LCRA just as much as y'all do, and they have nothing to do with my operation, I was just giving another point of view, which was the only other point of view than all y'all rice farmer supporters. Hell, I wish the lakes would fill up and the rice farming could continue, but the LCRA isn't gonna let that happen. So before you jump all over someones butt, do some research. I was just giving another point of view, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Just because I live in Austin doesn't mean I like the place, in fact I hate it. The only reason I live here is because of it's proximity to my ranch (which is the largest contiguous ranch in San Saba County) and because of it's good school systems that I can send my kids to school and get them a good education. I hate Austin as much as all of you, so don't jump to conclusions and do some freakin research for Christ sake. I'd like to hear an actual rice farmer speak up and speak his mind, because none of y'all sure as heck aren't in any sort of agriculture. All y'all do is live in Houston or whatever city and use their land so you can hunt. Just like my 59 leased deer hunters. So before anyone wants to throw a cheap blow my way, do a little research on the Texas Rice Farming industry and how much of a market share it is comprised of. It sounds like y'all are a bunch of weekend warriors, whereas I make my living off the land, off the back of my horse, and bust my a** so people like you can eat my beef. So before anyone throws another cheap shot my way, do a little research and educate yourself about actual agricultural practices, not what you already know about sitting in a blind on a rice field. This issue goes a lot deeper than that. Again, DIDN'T MEAN TO OFFEND ANYONE, just giving another perspective to this otherwise one-sided conversation. Again, just like y'all, I hate the LCRA and their liberal practices, but I do think they have a point in the need to supply central Texas with water. We don't have all the lakes and water y'all do down near the coast or east Texas, so y'all don't have to deal with this issue. How about they run some pipelines from the sabine or dozens of other rivers coming out of east Texas to the rice farmers. I'm not a waterfowl hunter, or rice farmer, but I do sympathize with y'all over this hot issue. Again, ALL I WAS DOING WAS GIVING ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE TO THIS ONE SIDED ISSUE Y'ALL CREATED. I DON'T MEAN TO OFFEND, JUST OFFERING ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW. So back off on attacking me unless your a freaking coward, and actually realize there is more than one point of view to this issue. I work hand in hand with the TSCRA, or for you city folk, the Texas Cattle Raisers Association, so I'm active in working with the pricks at the LCRA, and if anyone wants to take another cheap shot, your free to email me at [email protected] and we can continue our debate in private.

Oh, and for the d-bag who said "look at the Rancher's age" he probably inherited....... yeah, I did inherit the ranch when I was 19 years old when my dad died of a heart attack you a-hole, and since then I've turned my ranch into one of the only profitable operations in San Saba, County, and I bought my dodge dually with money I earned, not through inherited money. The only thing I inherited was 650k in debt, no cash. I've made my money on my own, not only through ranching, but through oil and gas ventures as well, that I created ON MY OWN and MADE MY OWN MONEY you freaking incompetent. Both my parents and my brother are dead, I am the last of my family, and everything I created I have done on my own. I didn't even get a chance to go to college because I was too busy at 19 years old running one of the largest ranches in central texas. At 27 years old I can pretty much guarantee I've accomplished 10x what you did when you were 27. Personal shots like that **** me off, especially since I've worked so hard for what I have, and I didn't have a freaking dime in inheritance other than the ranch, which I have sold none of the land and turned it into a profitable operation. Can you say the same? I didn't think so.

Sorry, I'm not usually so harsh, but personal shots like that really **** me off especially when people like that take personal shots without knowing a **** thing about me or my life. I might be young, but I know my business, and run my ranch like my father would have wanted and any rancher in the world would be proud to run an operation like I do. So go crawl back in your hole you freakin incompetent


----------



## Rancher86

And for the d-bag who said look at the ranchers age


----------



## Rancher86

And you're right, the rice industry in Texas WITH WATERFOWL HUNTING INCLUDED does produce jobs and create a lot of money for the state. So I ADMIT IT WAS WRONG ABOUT THAT. But your wrong in the "highland lake" rancher thing, my ranch is well above the lakes. I get no water from them. I drill my own wells. Y'all are like a pack of wolves, Jesus. If y'all can't handle another perspective it just shows how insecure you are. If I offended anyone, I am sorry, that is not the type of person I am. Whereas clearly that is not the types of person some of y'all are. I can at least admit when I'm wrong


----------



## daddyeaux

I'm glad you came back in to clarify your situation. But to say the rice farmers and their industry aren't worth saving was a cheap shot. Those lakes were created for a reason and it was the farming industry down stream that was to benefit from it. True most of the hunters aren't farmers or ranchers but the money they spend on the sport is enormous. And again it is not just the rice farmers but entire communities that depend on the rice farming industry and the water that these lakes provide.
Next time think before you post.


----------



## oOslikOo

Rancher86 said:


> And you're right, the rice industry in Texas WITH WATERFOWL HUNTING INCLUDED does produce jobs and create a lot of money for the state. So I ADMIT IT WAS WRONG ABOUT THAT. But your wrong in the "highland lake" rancher thing, my ranch is well above the lakes. I get no water from them. I drill my own wells. Y'all are like a pack of wolves, Jesus. If y'all can't handle another perspective it just shows how insecure you are. If I offended anyone, I am sorry, that is not the type of person I am. Whereas clearly that is not the types of person some of y'all are. I can at least admit when I'm wrong


My 200 million number was value of the crop alone. Beef is Texas' biggest player in agriculture because you can raise cattle just about anywhere. Rice cannot obviously and there are only 6 states really growing rice. Again you factor in recreational usage of the prairie and you have an even more sizable impact on the economy. Then factor in the wildlife impact of not only waterfowl but non game birds and other critters as well. I'm not sure why you want a rice farmer to chime in.....he'd be all over your arse


----------



## Rancher86

Exactly, I'd like to hear a rice farmers perspective because of that exact reason. I'm open minded and would like to hear one of their perspectives on the situation. I'm sure he would rip me apart, but that's how you learn. I don't know a whole, whole lot about rice farming, that's why I would like to hear their perspective. I'm not afraid of criticism or a good, fair debate where there are no low blows as so many low life's on here have resorted too in previous posts, criticizing my life when they know not a dang thing about me. 

And I do apologize because the rice farmers did and do originally own the rights to that water. That's why this is such a travesty that the LCRA is hoarding water up here, when they're not the rightful owners of it, so why should they get to say "it belongs to central texas?" That's bull and I agree with y'all. At the same time, they're arguing point is that the growing population of central Texas needs that water to support what is already here, as well as what will be here in the future. They have a good point, but the fact is that the rice farmers downstream originally owned the rights, and the LCRA is superceding those rights through false claims of ownership. That's all I was trying to point out, is that the LCRA does have a point in their concern over the growing population, even though it is a verified fact that it's a false claim of ownership and they shouldn't supercede the original owners downstream's rights to that water. I guess I didn't make that clear enough in my original post, and because of that several low life's tried to make real, real, low personal blows against me with some pretty personal and serious claims which they knew nothing about, which shows they're character (shows that they are lower than the scum on the bottom of my boots after I walk through my working pens, you know cow ****). I was just POINTING OUT FACTS, NOT AGREEING WITH WHAT THEY ARE DOING, even though at times it might have seemed like I was supporting them, if you read closely, I merely point out what they are doing and why. Nothing more. I even phrased it as if I were an LCRA spokesperson, which I'm sure set them off, but it was nothing but a testament to their point of view, as ill guided as it might be. And it is a fact that Rice Farming ALONE accounts for very, very, little of the states ag production. But, I DID NOT mention that when you team that up with waterfowl hunting and all other recreational activities that stem from rice farming, there are a lot of jobs dependent upon that and it accounts for a whole lot of money dumped into those economies, effectively sustaining them (the naysayers just assumed i was taking this into account, wrongfully so). 

Let me clarify, my original comments were NOT MY OPINION, BUT FACT. And that's that the LCRA see's Rice Farming and waterfowl hunting as insignificant and that supplying 1.5 Mil people with water more important. Personally guys, I could give a **** about the LCRA and their liberal agenda. I agree, Rice Farming and the waterfowl hunting it brings in, brings in A LOT of money to those coastal communities. It is what keeps many of those communities alive. Just like Ranching used to keep several communities alive, and after the drought, those communities are no more. Same thing. It's just a travesty that the LCRA has all the power. As I said before, I work hand in hand with the TSCRA, and the LCRA has screwed us over on several occasions not even regarding the highland lakes. 

My property is unaffected b/c I have 22 wells that give me all the water I need to supply my wildlife and livestock. And my ranch is no where near the Highland lakes, the closest one (Buchanan) is 70 miles SW as the crow flies. And beef is the largest Ag. product Texas produces, and I sell anywhere from 600-700 steers a year. So chances are someone reading this has eaten a prime steak off one of my black angus steers on several occasions. But that's off topic. 

Literally guys, I was just giving a different perspective. I'm sorry it made some of y'all so angry, but it should not make someone so angry as to take a personal shot at me like saying "look at the ranchers age.... he probably inherited that and his "daddy" bought him that nice dodge truck"... now that is out of line, and if someone said that to me on the street, I would beat him to an inch of his life or die trying. That is VERY PERSONAL and uncalled for, no matter the situation. What a freakin coward. He knows nothing about me and what I have been through. Like I said before, for any criticist out there, my dad died of a heart attack when I was 18 the day before my birthday, my mom died of a cancer when I was 16, and my brother died of a brain annurism playing football in Austin when I was 15. I was left with a 750k note to the Central Texas Land Bank, and 15,000 acres, and 250 short bread cows... THAT'S IT! Oh, wait, I did inherit some cash... my dad's 20,000$ life insurance policy that barely covered his burial. Not to mention the 800,000$ in estate Tax I inherited on top of that because his estate was way above the exlusion amount (5 million). I have reduced my 1.55 Million Dollar (that's right, Million) debt to under 600k as of today, by working my butt off on that ranch, as well as starting and owning two other companies that have been very profitable (companies I started that have to do with the Eagle Ford Shale Play) for me, allowing me to buy my dodge truck, boat (FLats Cat, which I use on the coast, not on the Highland lakes!), house, oh yeah, and another 800 acres to add to my ranch, paid in cash. So anyone else want to criticize and make assumptions about me based on my age? Go ahead, because there's literally nothing you can say that would be true and upset me. 
The only reason I live in Austin, again, is because I want my son to grow up and go to the best school for football in the nation, as well as academic excellence. It was either Austin, or a ****-hole like Waco or Killeen. 

So I've spoken my mind, and if you can actually read, you will understand why I said what I did, which I'm man enough to admit some of it was just plain wrong. I was just offering another perspective. Trust me guys, I hate the LCRA and their liberal agenda as much or more than y'all do because, like I said, I have to work with them with my work with TSCRA. They are scumbag, selfish, all liberal (I've met many of the board members and not one who's a conservative or at least a neutral), and have an agenda that definitely not benefit downstream farmers and hunters. So just don't be stupid and get facts mixed up with opinion. I'll admit that I was wrong on several instances, and should have clarified more, so at least I'm man enough to say that I was wrong when some of you cowards out there are so prideful and don't know **** that you can't pull your head out of your own cheeks long enough to be a man and admit when he is wrong.


----------



## kweber

I'd much rather live in San Saba than Austin...
also, there'd be WAY more water if most folks didn't want a thirsty St Augustine yard.
landscaping probably uses 75% of water allotment.i


----------



## DUKFVR

Rancher86 are you Hunter Ross? If so I met your Dad out that way. He was a Great guy.


----------



## wal1809

Cutting off the water is like playing that kids game called Jenga. You freakin Austin homos have no idea what you have done nor where it will end until after you pull the stick. All in the name of keeping what your side of the equation happy. You say don't sit here and whine about it, go hunt somewhere else. Then act shocked as if that statement shouldn't irritate the **** out of folks losing out down here on the coast. 

So while you all are happy, we have lost an entire industry with goose/duck hunting all but gone here on the Texas coast. That doesn't just put money into a farmer's pocket for leases. It puts money into small business from the time a hunter leaves his front door, until he returns home and then some. 

What gets purchased for a hunt? Ammunition, decoys, clothing, weapons, fuel, ice, BEER, restaurants ect. So it isn't a tiny little industry that is affected, it is an entire region with far reaching economical benefits for everyone. Heck, even the antique stores benefit. Wives go along and let their husbands hunt and they go to antique shops. I own two small businesses that rely directly upon goose and duck hunting in this region. Sorry I aint a rich man with a 15,000 cattle operation. I built both these little businesses with my hands. 

So for the Austin guy defending the water rights saying we need to do the research, no I don't have to. I live on the prairie. Me and everyone else out here are certainly affected when we were visited by only 180,000 geese this year. Down from a 1.2 million average. It affects a lot more than 1.2 million people. It affects the entire Texas coast.

So yall keep on washing your little Prius and watering that pretty little lawn you have. But most importantly keep kidding yourself thinking your issue is more important than the next guy's issue.


----------



## reload56

*Rancher86*

You had minor obstacles to overcome and you had property and cattle to start with,don't try to make it sound like you are a self made man. You had a lot to start with. Why no compassion for the farming communities who have relied on the water from the river long before you were born? Cattle ranching is a big business in Texas but so is Rice farming and its heritage is just as important as cattle ranching in Texas. Open your eyes and your mind and realize the world does not revolve around you, Austin, or the beef industry.


----------



## Horns1

I don't have time for a long reply but, some of you people really need to do some research on this matter. The real party to blame is the LCRA - go look into them, ask who they answer to or holds them accountable - no one is the answer, until recently. They are a quasi Gov entity that until recently has answered to no one & have done whatever they wanted.

We aren't talking about water to go waterskiing and boating on, at this point its getting down to water supply for the city of austin. You people just want to tell them tuff, we have rice to grow? I am pretty sure Austin's economy is larger than the rice growing economy in Texas.

Some of you talk about the austin liberals & hippies - that they should just conserve more water. That alone tells me you don't know how the system works. The more water they conserve, guess what, thats more water to be sent downstream to rice farmers to flood their crops. They are conserving big time, look at the data that is out there, but this is just an example of how LCRA's policy's could be revised.

Lastly Rancher 86 mentions something in his post that no one else commented on, he has* 22 water wells on his ranch that he has paid to have drilled. Question - why can't the rice farmers pay to drill their own water wells, just like rancher 86 has done? No one is telling them they can't grow rice or have the water. If you want the water, then pay up for it & buy Firm rights to it*, just like Austin & many other cities & users have done. Lastly no here has brought up the fact that most rice crops are federally insured and crop insurance is supported by you & I. So, most of the farmers are still getting paid for their crop, now they probably aren't spending the money on fertilizer, crop dusting, etc... all the things that go along w/ farming, but the farmer is still getting paid by the gov. The fact is water is a precious resource now & there are better uses for it now than flooding a field.

And my family is from Ganada & El Campo & I have relatives in rice farming. They have all done very, very well over the years. Guys, its just a sad fact Texas (& austin) is a growing state / city with lots of people moving here and water is going to become an even more valuable resource with even more fights to come.


----------



## oOslikOo

Horns1 said:


> I don't have time for a long reply but, some of you people really need to do some research on this matter. The real party to blame is the LCRA - go look into them, ask who they answer to or holds them accountable - no one is the answer, until recently. They are a quasi Gov entity that until recently has answered to no one & have done whatever they wanted.
> 
> We aren't talking about water to go waterskiing and boating on, at this point its getting down to water supply for the city of austin. You people just want to tell them tuff, we have rice to grow? I am pretty sure Austin's economy is larger than the rice growing economy in Texas.
> 
> Some of you talk about the austin liberals & hippies - that they should just conserve more water. That alone tells me you don't know how the system works. The more water they conserve, guess what, thats more water to be sent downstream to rice farmers to flood their crops. They are conserving big time, look at the data that is out there, but this is just an example of how LCRA's policy's could be revised.
> 
> Lastly Rancher 86 mentions something in his post that no one else commented on, he has* 22 water wells on his ranch that he has paid to have drilled. Question - why can't the rice farmers pay to drill their own water wells, just like rancher 86 has done? No one is telling them they can't grow rice or have the water. If you want the water, then pay up for it & buy Firm rights to it*, just like Austin & many other cities & users have done. Lastly no here has brought up the fact that most rice crops are federally insured and crop insurance is supported by you & I. So, most of the farmers are still getting paid for their crop, now they probably aren't spending the money on fertilizer, crop dusting, etc... all the things that go along w/ farming, but the farmer is still getting paid by the gov. The fact is water is a precious resource now & there are better uses for it now than flooding a field.
> 
> And my family is from Ganada & El Campo & I have relatives in rice farming. They have all done very, very well over the years. Guys, its just a sad fact Texas (& austin) is a growing state / city with lots of people moving here and water is going to become an even more valuable resource with even more fights to come.


Because a well for a relatively small water supply such a home or for cattle is much cheaper than drilling a well that has to flood potenially 1,000 acres several times over the coarse of a growing season. and in cases the farmer will need several wells to make this happen. I got quoted $12,000 for a well on a place a run cattle. wells capable for to grow rice are about $250,000. The farmers/areas affected have been dependant on canal water for over 100 years. And there are farmers in said area turning to wells but the ones i know of are large scale farmers that have the resources to do so.


----------



## oOslikOo

also what the farmer receives is dependent on his insurance pollicy. and if you think the farmer benefits more from not growing rice because of the lack of expenses you listed you are beyond helping. also in cases where the farmer is not the landowner, the landowner will be receiving the subsidy not the farmer. and if the farmer is the landowner the subsidy will not even be close to the value of the crop.


----------



## marksmu

To me the bottom line is very simple. When Austin stops allowing people to water any of their yards at all, stops allowing people to water flowers and trees, play all sports on astro turf not grass - turns the Capital and UT into rock gardens and not beautiful putting greens, cuts off all water to the golf courses, fixes all of their broken water mains (through bonds paid for by Austin residents only) Then an only then, can we even start to discuss the issue of cutting water off to the farmers.

Heck I read that 58% of the water withdrawn from the lakes for resident use was lost to broken water mains & pipes last year. Here we have a bunch of Austin folks willing to put an entire industry and the livelihood of entire communities out of business so that they can have green grass, golf courses, and a pretty college campus. Doesnt makes sense to me.


----------



## mapman

*Water Wells*

I hunt on the Rock Island rairie and the rice fields near us us water wells. Each cost over $250,000.


----------



## Rancher86

Thank you for the ONE GUY on here pointing out a simple fact and backing me up a little. And jesus christ guys, If you read my most recent posts, I AM ON YOUR FREAKIN SIDE!!!! All I was doing was pointing out facts and what the LCRA is going to do, unrightfully so, b/c the rice farmers OWN THE WATER RIGHTS AND THE LCRA CLAIMS THEY CAN SUPERCEDE THOSE DEEDS which is bull. But the simple and tragic fact is that they ARE GOING TO DO IT, so austin idiots can water their st. Augustine and **** like that. It's a crying shame, because I, being in the ag industry, for sure don't like seeing my industry "brothers" get cut off by some made up entity that acts like Obama and can do whatever they want without the proper legal proceedings. 

Oh yeah, I read this morning where Obabma is putting his face on Mt. Rushmore. Seriously. Look it up. This also made me want to throw my computer out the window. He's doing this through Executive Order, and stated in a quote that he believes himself to be the 4th greatest president this nation has known, and Teddy Roosevelt should be taken off the wall. Look it up guys, it's actually gonna happen.... I literally don't even have the words to describe how sad I am for this country right now. Hold on to your guns boys, b/c that's next


----------



## daddyeaux

^^^^^^^^^^^^LMAO......Obama on Mt. Rushmore............I hope there is not a sculptor in the world that would take that job......


----------



## wal1809

marksmu said:


> To me the bottom line is very simple. When Austin stops allowing people to water any of their yards at all, stops allowing people to water flowers and trees, play all sports on astro turf not grass - turns the Capital and UT into rock gardens and not beautiful putting greens, cuts off all water to the golf courses, fixes all of their broken water mains (through bonds paid for by Austin residents only) Then an only then, can we even start to discuss the issue of cutting water off to the farmers.
> 
> Heck I read that 58% of the water withdrawn from the lakes for resident use was lost to broken water mains & pipes last year. Here we have a bunch of Austin folks willing to put an entire industry and the livelihood of entire communities out of business so that they can have green grass, golf courses, and a pretty college campus. Doesnt makes sense to me.


I agree!


----------



## Texas Jeweler

OK, as I am a land owner/duck hunter, here is what I am seeing in Jefferson County. Right now, today, we are seeing more ducks than we did ALL SEASON. We have had plenty of water, the birds just were not here, as in my neighbors east of the Sabine River. Three weeks ago, I saw more snow geese than we had ALL SEASON. My opinion is, birds got to the mid-west, found food and water, stayed there. Waste corn played out at the end of season here and birds statred showing up!

It is not if you have water, it is if we have birds!


----------



## oOslikOo

Texas Jeweler said:


> OK, as I am a land owner/duck hunter, here is what I am seeing in Jefferson County. Right now, today, we are seeing more ducks than we did ALL SEASON. We have had plenty of water, the birds just were not here, as in my neighbors east of the Sabine River. Three weeks ago, I saw more snow geese than we had ALL SEASON. My opinion is, birds got to the mid-west, found food and water, stayed there. Waste corn played out at the end of season here and birds statred showing up!
> 
> It is not if you have water, it is if we have birds!


There was quite a bit of water on the west side for most of the season. There were lots of ducks for alot of it too. Sure at times it was tougher than others, but the prairie west of Houston was in better shape than it has been the last few seasons. And having water for a 1 to 5 acre duck pond, heck make it 20 acres is much different than having enough water for 2 rice crops of say just a couple hundred acres. even in the driest of years a nice rain will make a duck pond for some time with dirt work in place. Sure some flats are better than others but you get the point. As for more ducks now than during the season, im not so sure about that. Birds are concentrated for a push north, and there is likely less water now than during the season. alot of planned duck ponds are now dry because boards are pulled etc. during the season birds get busted up and move around alot. I always see the most ducks in the week leading up to duck season. after the opener im lucky to see half of what i saw just days before. This holds true for the largest numbers of Specks i observe as well. Heck the 2nd week of October you couldve shot an 8 man limit of darks within a 6 mile radius of one "X".

As for Snows i dont believe the numbers put out. To me the math doesnt add up. what i have gathered from talking to folks from Louisiana is they are having a similar situation with their Snows and even Specks. So you have the 2 traditional states for Snows and they are both losing them, while the population "explodes". I get why Texas' numbers have dropped, but where are they? Arky counts 1.5 million.....cool beans but where are the rest? Midwest? Im sure theres some but to me there is no way it makes up the difference. Sure theres miles and miles of corn, but wheres the open water for the vast number of missing Snows? I know people will go through the trouble of keeping water open, but the arent doing it for Snows, they do it to duck hunt it. They will wait until March and rake the Snows. You may read a report or talk to someone that will say they saw X amount of Snows somewhere but most people grossly overestimate how many Snows are in a bunch. It's about as bad as people judging hogs on the hoof. I saw more Canadas this season than probably the last few combined. Last year i think i killed 6, and this year there were people specifically targeting them. If this winter drove Canadas down in decent force, it drove down just about anything.


----------



## Horns1

marksmu said:


> To me the bottom line is very simple. When Austin stops allowing people to water any of their yards at all, stops allowing people to water flowers and trees, play all sports on astro turf not grass - turns the Capital and UT into rock gardens and not beautiful putting greens, cuts off all water to the golf courses, fixes all of their broken water mains (through bonds paid for by Austin residents only) Then an only then, can we even start to discuss the issue of cutting water off to the farmers.
> 
> Heck I read that 58% of the water withdrawn from the lakes for resident use was lost to broken water mains & pipes last year. Here we have a bunch of Austin folks willing to put an entire industry and the livelihood of entire communities out of business so that they can have green grass, golf courses, and a pretty college campus. Doesnt makes sense to me.


Mark, you need to realize the water yards part is a very small % of water in the overall picture. But I do agree with you that all the major cities in Texas need to spend more $$$ to fix broken water pipes and stop wasting water.

Here is some info I have posted before on the issue: 
First off the Rice Farmers don't have the Senior Water Rights - they have Interuptible Water Rights, which is why the water has been "somewhat" cut off to them. The Cities and some other users have Firm Water Rights. If you don't want your water cut off, buy Firm Water Rights and pay for them. On the Brazon River they do have Senior Rights, but in this discussion we are talking about the LCRA. FYI- the farmers pay approx $6 an acre ft of water, while cities & industrial users are paying approx $100 an acre ft of water, so again - if you don't want to change what you grow and don't want to drill your own well, then buy Firm Water Rights.

The Rice Farmers received more water in 2011 than is currently left in Lake Travis. That *year the farmers received more water than Austin did over 15 years*. The LCRA made 2 releases to the farmers in 2011, in a time of drought. The lakes have never recovered from those record releases. Since 2000 Austin water use has been steady around 150,000 acre ft, while the population has grown from around 750,000 to about 900,000 people. Over the same time the Irrigation Water (for farming) use has gone from about 375,000 acre ft to a low of around 200,000 acre ft in 2008, to approx 460,000 acre ft in 2011. So, your comparison of watering yards is not valid. This a perfect example of conservation that has paid off for the city of austin. Of course the flip side of the coin is for every $100 acre ft of water that Austin conserved that is $6 acre ft that LCRA sends downstream.

If I was a farmer I would adapt to the change that has occured with the climate and with the population growth in Texas. Rice is the biggest water wasting crop there is and we can agree that water is becoming a precious commodity.

The facts are Texas and it's population has changed since the 1930's & 1940's when the dams were built. We are in different world then back in the 30's & 40's.

Here is some additional reading info: http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/20...hree-times-as-much-water-as-austin-last-year/ - a little old but still relevant


----------



## oOslikOo

There's an article in the Chronicle about this issue this morning.


----------



## 3rdcst

The lakes will fill. What happens then ? The people in charge of the water could care less about waterfowl.


----------



## dbarber22

Horns, you bring up that rice is wasting so much water. What about all of the car washes in Austin how many acres could we flood with that runoff?


----------



## 3rdcst

Rice water isn't wasted it goes back into the environment.Run-off recharges aquifers ,estuaries etc.


----------



## oOslikOo

The cut-off will result in an 18.3 million dollar hit to the value of the crop in Matagorda County.


----------



## 3rdcst

1000 dollar an acre to plant and grow the first crop.


----------



## Goose Lover

From my perspective I can't see how Austin is anything close to sharing the pain of the drought.

The rice farmers have been told they are completely cut off from rice water for 3 years and running because of how tenuous the lake levels have become. That's a lot of pain for the farmers and the related businesses. 

Yet I don't see that Austin has gone to the highest stage drought alerts. If the situation is so bad they should be at maximum conservation levels.

And Austin has not been forced to freeze it cumulative and overall water use. 

For example if there are one million people in that area and they use 100 million gallons per day right now and cut that use to 80 millions gallons per day that is a 20% reduction.

But if Austin's population doubles to 2 million people and keep using 80 gallons per person per day then Austin will use 160 million gallons per day. That's an overall 60% increase in their daily use.

Why isn't Austin forced to cap it's overall use? If the rice farmers are forced to go without any irrigation water then why doesn't Austin freeze it's overall use at todays levels or reduce it?


----------



## Johnny9

The project 36A is a bypass around west Ft. Bend County from Needville/Pleak area to Spur 10 which exists west of Rosenberg up to Highway 36 to Sealy. Intentions are to continue northwest across Brazos River and possibly use Bowser Road/Pool Hill road north to northwest of Fulshear. Studies are being done from east Fulshear to Simonton in Ft. Bend County. Possible to tie into Woods Road which would take it Brookshire east thru Katy Prarie to Highway 290/6. Relieve from hurricane evacuations is primary reason.

Commissioner Andy Meyers represents Ft. Bend County in the studies. He might just get voted out of office should he pick a non desirable route and he had no one run against him last election.


----------



## Rancher86

Gotta chime in one more time guys. The last 2 pages have the most logical reasoning. They point out the LCRA is a racketeering operation, full of liberal pricks. And it's true, in the neighborhood I live in in Austin, there is SO MUCH water wasted through irrigation. I don't water my yard, it's not that dang important to me. 

Some of you guys need to realize that Austin, while being a Mecca for Prius driving liberal d-bags, is not completely comprised of these types of people. There are a lot of hard core conservatives too, that agree with the general consensus of what is being said here. Again, I would LOVE TO LIVE AT MY RANCH IN SAN SABA, but I live in the suburbs in Austin so my kids can get an excellent education and if they are athletic like I was, have a shot on a top tier football team to make it to college ball. I'm only 27, I'll move out to my ranch when I retire, or my kids move off to college, and I CANT WAIT for that day to come, as far off as it may be. 

And for the guy that said "not everyone is a RICH 15,000" acre landowner, well let me tell you a little about the cattle business. It is dang, dang hard to turn a profit on a ranch with cattle as your main enterprise, even if you have 600 head. Feed prices have gone up, heck, everything has gone up. Y'all wouldn't believe what I pay a year in overheads alone. You have to lease to hunters as well. And even then, most years, you barely break even. I only do it because I love it, not for the money. I never made my money from the ranch, but I did make my money from the 2 companies I started providing frack rigs with water in the Eagle Ford Shale play. Without that money from those companies 'THAT I AND I ALONE BUILT FROM SCRATCH, I wouldn't be ranching anymore. I use that money to supplement what is now a dying legacy tradition. I just do it b/c I love it. 

I could give a **** about Austin and their needs for water. But like the guy above said, the rice farmers own the deeds but those deeds can be superseded, like the LCRA has done. It really is a shame what is happening, but it's the way things work, as unjust as they may be. A lot of communities are going to take a big hit (probably already have) from this, and it's a freakin shame. Along with the waterfowl hunters and guides. It's sad, but It will really take a biblical type rain over a number of years to fill those lakes back to capacity. Personally, I don't think they'll get above 70% in the next 20 years, I hope I'm wrong though. 

And ill say it ONE LAST TIME, didn't mean to offend anyone, even though I did. And I apologize for that. I was just initially offering a different perspective as the last few posts have done as well. So, sorry if I hurt your feelings. 
Y'all can have your thread back now b/c I'm sick of all this "gang up" stuff without even realizing the point (or perspective) I was trying to make. I'm on your side, and after reading all my posts, you don't realize that, than you need to have a mental evaluation.
I'm out.......
-Rancher86


----------



## AvianQuest

Rancher86 said:


> Do some research on how "productive" and how big of a market share the rice farmers have.... it's minuscule.


Kind of unfair considering Texas rice acreage is down 80% because of no water.

But if you want to talk about "productive" use of land, an acre of rice field will average 8,000 pounds of rice each year.

So, if your 15,000 acres were used to grow rice, that would produce 120,000,000 pounds of rice in a year. That would feed a lot of people.

Instead, you're using your 15,000 acres to feed 600 head of cows and calves. If you look at what your land produces per acre each year, it's barely enough for a single backyard BBQ.


----------



## dwilliams35

AvianQuest said:


> Kind of unfair considering Texas rice acreage is down 80% because of no water.
> 
> But if you want to talk about "productive" use of land, an acre of rice field will average 8,000 pounds of rice each year.
> 
> So, if your 15,000 acres were used to grow rice, that would produce 120,000,000 pounds of rice in a year. That would feed a lot of people.
> 
> Instead, you're using your 15,000 acres to feed 600 head of cows and calves. If you look at what your land produces per acre each year, it's barely enough for a single backyard BBQ.


 That's pretty unfair: you pick the ag commodity that your location will support; Try growing rice in the hill country, see how far that gets you. That's anything but an apples to apples comparison.


----------



## dwilliams35

Horns1 said:


> Lastly Rancher 86 mentions something in his post that no one else commented on, he has* 22 water wells on his ranch that he has paid to have drilled. Question - why can't the rice farmers pay to drill their own water wells, just like rancher 86 has done? No one is telling them they can't grow rice or have the water. If you want the water, then pay up for it & buy Firm rights to it*, just like Austin & many other cities & users have done..


 Yep , if you can't see it, it really doesn't matter, right? Water from a well is completely inexhaustible, right? This is a whole package: surface water and groundwater are part of the same problem. Rice water is simply redirected surface water: it would end up in the bay if they didn't use it for rice, and it ends up in the bay if they do: the water coming out of sprinkler heads in Austin can't claim that. The hill country area has overtaxed the Edwards aquifer, which with sane usage could in all probability support a heck of a population: sane usage isn't on the table, however. Taking water from everybody else in the state is, apparently, and that would include simply killing yet another aquifer because the highland lakes have now been claimed as "their" water. Gulf Coast aquifers, run and hide..

The LCRA was started to provide water for agriculture on the lower end of the river, and hydroelectric power. All the lakes which were thus built attracted the hippies, whom then claimed it as "their" water as they built Austin.

At its base, here's the argument: do you want a yard of the month sign, or do you want to eat that month? Sure, that's simplistic, but apply it the greater scheme of things and it's right on the money. Agriculture is under assault by urban and suburban concentrations of political clout in this country: The prevailing view on the subject is "to heck with a bunch of farmers, we get our rice from HEB anyway, not some ******* in El Campo"... That only goes so far: we've stretched the water in the country as thin as it can go, and we're still doing stupid stuff like planting St. Augustine instead of allocating our resources toward activities that actually contribute to our long-term survival and strategic independence..


----------



## bluefin

dwilliams35 said:


> ...instead of allocating our resources toward activities that actually contribute to our long-term survival and strategic independence..


And the world stopped when Imperial Sugar left Sugarland...
I think some of you assume Austin is the greenest place on earth and everyone washes their cars daily. Hello out-of-touch. 
Austin and surrounding areas have put some pretty severe water restrictions in use already. The rains that normally feed the Colorado further west aren't happening so they aren't feeding into the lakes. Austin continues to grow both in population and businesses which both consume water. I know, shocker! 
Rice is rice. It is grown all around the world. Just like sugar which was found to be grown and processed much cheaper else where, hence, no more Imperial Sugar. 
Everyone in Austin would love, absolutely love, to see more water in the lakes. If you saw the conditions today as compared to just a few years ago you'd be shocked. It has more to do with lack of rains and hurricanes coming up and dumping into the area than watering yards or a few busted pipes.


----------



## AvianQuest

dwilliams35 said:


> That's pretty unfair: you pick the ag commodity that your location will support; Try growing rice in the hill country, see how far that gets you. That's anything but an apples to apples comparison.


True, but the drift I was getting was that Rancher86 was saying that the land the rice is being grown on would be more productive if it were converted to cattle ranching.


----------



## Momma's Worry

*water*

the future will bite the bullet ,kicking and screaming, and build de-salt plants/pipe lines all down the Texas coast and sell limitless water to the high bidders......meanwhile all will change with no natural water flow to the bays.......


----------



## AvianQuest

Horns1 said:


> why can't the rice farmers pay to drill their own water wells, just like rancher 86 has done? No one is telling them they can't grow rice or have the water. If you want the water, then pay up for it & buy Firm rights to it


Many do. One farmer just spent $700,000 for wells in a desperate last ditch attempt to keep his family farm going. Of course then there is the added cost of running the wells and most of the rice farmers are far into debt as it is.

Sadly our best farm land is being gobbled up and lost for ever under subdivisions and shopping malls.

Water is far more valuable that oil. Without oil, we revert back to the Stone Age. Without water, we all die.


----------



## AvianQuest

bluefin said:


> Everyone in Austin would love, absolutely love, to see more water in the lakes. If you saw the conditions today as compared to just a few years ago you'd be shocked. It has more to do with lack of rains and hurricanes coming up and dumping into the area than watering yards or a few busted pipes.


True.

Look at Lake Medina, one of Texas' great lakes which held the largemouth bass record for decades...



















And Lake Travis...


----------



## dbarber22

There have been 5 farmers from Wharton county sell their farms there and buy farms Jefferson county in the last 8 months. Will prob be more to follow


----------



## dwilliams35

bluefin said:


> And the world stopped when Imperial Sugar left Sugarland...
> I think some of you assume Austin is the greenest place on earth and everyone washes their cars daily. Hello out-of-touch.
> Austin and surrounding areas have put some pretty severe water restrictions in use already. The rains that normally feed the Colorado further west aren't happening so they aren't feeding into the lakes. Austin continues to grow both in population and businesses which both consume water. I know, shocker!
> Rice is rice. It is grown all around the world. Just like sugar which was found to be grown and processed much cheaper else where, hence, no more Imperial Sugar.
> Everyone in Austin would love, absolutely love, to see more water in the lakes. If you saw the conditions today as compared to just a few years ago you'd be shocked. It has more to do with lack of rains and hurricanes coming up and dumping into the area than watering yards or a few busted pipes.


 Every time a farmer hangs it up, we're a little closer to starving to death. We're a long way from it now, but it's certainly a valid consideration for our a long-term survival. Right now the only consideration about our current problems for a lot of people is just that they can't wash their car that day if the water restrictions say so, how inconvenient. Meanwhile, we keep on adding subdivisions with absolutely unsustainable water requirements..

The dire water situation isn't going to magically disappear the first time a hurricane rolls in and puts a dent in the hill country lakes' levels.. We've got serious allocation problems here, and there are cities, counties, golf courses, corporations, power plants, etc. that are quite literally holding LCRA and BRA contracts for more water than even average rainfall can supply, to say nothing of a long-term drought. The Colorado-Guadalupe watersheds are simply the biggest current problem: we're all going to follow in their footsteps if we don't get our collective head out of our butt and start reconsidering our priorities with water: The Austin-San Antonio corridor quite simply is using more water than those watersheds can supply on a long-term basis(or even a medium- or short-term basis for that matter ) with or without the lakes, and they collectively really don't give a **** about any allocation of that water beyond their own municipal uses. The Brazos watershed is about a decade or two behind in it's journey toward the same fate: it hasn't had the pressure that the Colorado has had until the relatively recent discovery by the Houston-Galveston I-45 corridor communities that the Brazos is really pretty close if you're hunting for fresh water to keep the crepe myrtles alive..

You can frame this as municipal vs. agriculture all you want to: that just fosters hate and discontent. It's in actuality humans vs. nature, and we're losing due to our own stupidity. Agriculture is the one thing in this whole argument that we really can't do without; any time you allow somebody to dump hundreds or thousands of gallons of water on a decorative lawn or even a golf course, and demand that a food source go away to accommodate it, you're quite simply screwing up. You may not notice it now, maybe not for decades, but when you buy your first $30 loaf of bread, remember how good your yard looked in 2014,,,


----------



## bluefin

dwilliams,
Where do you live. I notice you left that off your description.
I can tell you w/o reservation that Austin and surrounding areas are doing quite a bit to keep water usage at a minimum. The local paper even did a write up and printed the names of individuals who were using the highest amount of water. 
I think you and some others here think folks in Austin are somehow oblivious to all of this and that you and a few others are the only ones to have deciphered the issue. Travis is so low that if you don't already have your boat on the water then forget it. There are but a couple of private ramps that reach that low. 
Tell you what, why don't you publish your address and for every person moving to Austin why don't you tell them how bad it is for them to move there and you and others won't get your rice for dinner and how it's in the best interest of Texans everywhere they should move in your neighborhood.


----------



## dwilliams35

bluefin said:


> dwilliams,
> Where do you live. I notice you left that off your description.
> I can tell you w/o reservation that Austin and surrounding areas are doing quite a bit to keep water usage at a minimum. The local paper even did a write up and printed the names of individuals who were using the highest amount of water.
> I think you and some others here think folks in Austin are somehow oblivious to all of this and that you and a few others are the only ones to have deciphered the issue. Travis is so low that if you don't already have your boat on the water then forget it. There are but a couple of private ramps that reach that low.
> Tell you what, why don't you publish your address and for every person moving to Austin why don't you tell them how bad it is for them to move there and you and others won't get your rice for dinner and how it's in the best interest of Texans everywhere they should move in your neighborhood.


 You really just don't get it, do you...

Like it matters, I'm on the Brazos. River frontage, Senior D&L riparian rights and everything. Which has made the issue a pretty high priority of mine for decades now, since well before the drought hit.. I'm very aware of the situation in the lakes, in numerous watersheds, as well as the conditions surrounding usage and water table levels of various groundwater aquifers in the state. I'm also very involved in the agriculture business in this state, just by way of full disclosure. As a result of that, I've been personally studying the subject in this state for decades, some years more than others, but the one constant which has always been painfully obvious no matter what the rainfall currently was, is that if you really get it down to simple numbers, the status quo is absolutely unsustainable, and is so far from that goal as to be astounding.

You're so wound up in this us-vs-them thing that you simply can't realize that Austin is the canary in the coalmine: it's the first battleground in this war quite simply because a) it's a major metropolitan area that is built in an area with little or no forethought about just how much stress those particular systems can take, and b) we're in the middle of an extended drought that finally brought the problems which I've been following for decades to the front pages and the ballot boxes, despite the warning signs that had been present and ignored the whole time.

Rice is simply the ag commodity that is currently in question: it's by no means the only one that is an issue: Rice farms, while they use a lot of water, also release a lot of water to their traditional channels as well, something that suburban uses can't claim: any water that makes it back to said channels is either hideously polluted, the simple runoff of over-watering or other wastage, or it is returned as treated sewage.. Neither has the supply-to-return ratio anywhere near a rice farm... Of course, they are also painfully responsible for subsidence, water table issues, etc. etc. etc. in areas where they traditionally pump well water rather than surface water.. That's a big problem with the rice farmers vs. the suburbanites battle: The suburbanites in that battle can't seem to see past "gallons supplied", while that's only a small part of the equation: the water RETURNED is imperative as well, be it simply going to a recharge zone or contributing to the health of our bays.

Yes, Austin has done more than most to reduce water usage, simply by necessity. They have yet to do anywhere near enough, though. They are simply fixated on basing their infrastructure and habits on what they can currently get, rather than what their watershed and aquifers can actually support, and exploring means to make up the shortfall by tapping other already-stressed water sources rather than just biting the bullet and striving to "live within their means".. While their current version of a long-term plan absolutely shames some of the communities in the Houston area (which have higher annual rainfall to begin with), it is still simply unsustainable and needs to be taken further. Much further.

One way or another, if you can't see that agriculture is a priority to our long-term survival and an activity that is worthy of inclusion in our water plans, I can't help you.


----------



## bluefin

I and others I'm sure appreciate your efforts. This is a serious issue which many local, state and fed types are trying to resolve to the best conclusion for everyone. It's certainly not new though. My bro in law's dad wrote his master's thesis at ATM on this subject. It is happening all over the US as well. Parts of Calif. are drying up.

As typical the ignorance shows up when posters talk about green lawns and golf courses. I have a dove lease in Schwertner just north of Austin that has a pretty good size pond. The owner told me that he'd never seen it dried up til a couple of yrs ago. He's about 110 yrs old. lol The reason it dried up was simply lack of rain due to the drought - not car washes or crepe myrtle bathing. 

As far as planning the Austin City Council's big mistake was about 15 yrs ago luring in the chip making facilities. They use an inordinate amount of water in the production of computer chips. But, this was at a time when houses and docks were floating over the dams due to all of the heavy rains each year. Since the chip makers have come it seems the drought started. About the only way to reverse it is a hurricane (preferably 2) to come straight up Central Texas to rejuvenate the lakes and aquifers. I have also heard but not confirmed that Austin is building a lake to the east of town since west doesn't seem to want to play any more. I have no facts on it. Just hearsay.


----------



## dwilliams35

bluefin said:


> I and others I'm sure appreciate your efforts. This is a serious issue which many local, state and fed types are trying to resolve to the best conclusion for everyone. It's certainly not new though. My bro in law's dad wrote his master's thesis at ATM on this subject. It is happening all over the US as well. Parts of Calif. are drying up.
> 
> As typical the ignorance shows up when posters talk about green lawns and golf courses. I have a dove lease in Schwertner just north of Austin that has a pretty good size pond. The owner told me that he'd never seen it dried up til a couple of yrs ago. He's about 110 yrs old. lol The reason it dried up was simply lack of rain due to the drought - not car washes or crepe myrtle bathing.
> 
> As far as planning the Austin City Council's big mistake was about 15 yrs ago luring in the chip making facilities. They use an inordinate amount of water in the production of computer chips. But, this was at a time when houses and docks were floating over the dams due to all of the heavy rains each year. Since the chip makers have come it seems the drought started. About the only way to reverse it is a hurricane (preferably 2) to come straight up Central Texas to rejuvenate the lakes and aquifers. I have also heard but not confirmed that Austin is building a lake to the east of town since west doesn't seem to want to play any more. I have no facts on it. Just hearsay.


 There's lot of factors, but it all needs to be looked at: the main issue with green lawns and golf courses is simply a matter of prioritization: is that the best use for a scarce commodity? Agriculture is certainly something we can't abandon: lowering water usage has been a primary consideration for years now in many forms of agriculture as well: that's a simple economic issue as the price of water goes up, be it through simple supply and demand or through regulation. The only thing that is a given is that water is a given for agriculture, and agriculture is a basic indispensable need for life as we know it. The back nine at Barton Creek? Not so much.. Tell everybody in Austin that irrigation is just flat-out banned, and by necessity the remaining holdouts will suddenly discover xeriscaping.. The technology is there, the science is already there, it's just a matter of making the choices to do it, personally, politically, and as a state in general.

A hurricane won't do it: all that will do at this point is prolong the inevitable: the fact remains that most of the state, and the Colorado watershed in particular, is addicted to more water than their watershed can supply: you may still see some floods during those hurricanes, good years and bad years, whatever, but go over a hundred or a thousand years to get your average and it just simply can't supply the habit. When those lakes were built to stabilize the ag water supply, it was pretty sufficient: add the growth of the area and an incessant tapping of that resource for general municipal uses, not all of which are wise, and it's no longer sufficient.


----------



## Rancher86

I agree. It's gonna take 10 years or so of very wet years to fill those lakes back up. Call me a pessimist, but in 20 years, I seriously doubt they'll be full. Heck, they'll probably be dried up by then if this continues. A few months ago we got about 10" in 3 weeks time, upriver where it dumps into lake Buchanan. Slow soaking rain that saturated the ground, then some good hard rain, good run-off rain. I expected the lake to go up 5-10%, but it went up 3%, and was back down to 28% or so a month later. It's bad, real bad. Those rains filled up my stock tanks no problem, to the point of overflowing, but the lakes acted like it never happened. I try to envision what it'll look like in 20 year and it scares the **** out of me


----------



## Rancher86

Oh, and "DWilliams", funny, same last name as me. But you mentioned the cattle industry vs. the rice industry. First of all, you don't see quality cattle as much down there on the coast because the land won't sustain the prime beef I can grow on my grass. That's why you see a lot of Brahman and F-1 crosses, b/c they're hardy and are a lot easier to keep healthy that high dollar Angus or Hereford. You're comparison made absolutely no sense. On my place I can run 1 cow to 20 acres on an average year. 1 cow to 14.75 acres on a good year. And 1 cow to 30-40 acres during drought conditions. These are 2 completely different geographical locations. You can't grow or sustain the quality cattle I run down there on the coast, unless you keep them on a steady diet of Coastal year round, in that case you wouldn't make it through one calving session. You'd be out of business in no time. My country is known for having excellent, nutritious grass (nothing like Kansas or northern Oklahoma though). That's why they rice farm down there, not run cattle. And that's why we run cattle, because even if we could flood the fields that are non-existent b/c of the hilly, ROCKY terrain, it would never work due to geographical conditions. But I'm in agreement and have already done research and apologized about being wrong about rice production in Texas and it's impact on the economy. You're analogy was just not thought out well and completely irrelevant especially when you're talking about the cattle industry, being that it takes up the largest market share of Texas' Ag economy, rice does not even make the top 10. But that doesn't mean I'm saying it's not important. I support all Ag industries and I hate to see this happening to them, but it is what it is. Nothing more. What lawmakers should be doing is figuring out how to get some of that abundant east texas water (their' rainfall is about 12x ours annually) and pipe it in to the rice fields so the industry does not die out down there.

Just read where you said that I said "the rice fields should be converted to cattle production..." I obviously mislead you with the point I was trying to make. Point out where I said that. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The only thing you could feasibly do with that land is run a stocker operation. Not cow/calf. That land might, and I said might, allow for 1 cow to every 50 acres, and that's with Brahman type cattle, not Angus or any calf you would get at a high end steakhouse. Cattle ranching, cow/calf wise down there would be completely unsustainable. Near Victoria they got some pretty good grass, and grow quality cattle, but the areas you are referring to cannot and do not run those operations like mine. Read previous posts and learn how to comprehend a "scenario" or "theory" vs. practicality. I never in a million years said that country should be converted into cattle country. That's farm land, and should stay farm land simply because it would be an impossibility to run a profitable cow/calf operation do to the lack of nutritious grass clumps, and just the overall nutrition of the grass. Only a very large Stocker operation could turn a profit down there. And that's only if they could get their big rigs loaded with 75,000/lbs down mud roads to market. That's why my area is "cow country" and down there is "rice/various other crops" country


----------



## oOslikOo

Rancher86 said:


> Oh, and "DWilliams", funny, same last name as me. But you mentioned the cattle industry vs. the rice industry. First of all, you don't see quality cattle as much down there on the coast because the land won't sustain the prime beef I can grow on my grass. That's why you see a lot of Brahman and F-1 crosses, b/c they're hardy and are a lot easier to keep healthy that high dollar Angus or Hereford. You're comparison made absolutely no sense. On my place I can run 1 cow to 20 acres on an average year. 1 cow to 14.75 acres on a good year. And 1 cow to 30-40 acres during drought conditions. These are 2 completely different geographical locations. You can't grow or sustain the quality cattle I run down there on the coast, unless you keep them on a steady diet of Coastal year round, in that case you wouldn't make it through one calving session. You'd be out of business in no time. My country is known for having excellent, nutritious grass (nothing like Kansas or northern Oklahoma though). That's why they rice farm down there, not run cattle. And that's why we run cattle, because even if we could flood the fields that are non-existent b/c of the hilly, ROCKY terrain, it would never work due to geographical conditions. But I'm in agreement and have already done research and apologized about being wrong about rice production in Texas and it's impact on the economy. You're analogy was just not thought out well and completely irrelevant especially when you're talking about the cattle industry, being that it takes up the largest market share of Texas' Ag economy, rice does not even make the top 10. But that doesn't mean I'm saying it's not important. I support all Ag industries and I hate to see this happening to them, but it is what it is. Nothing more. What lawmakers should be doing is figuring out how to get some of that abundant east texas water (their' rainfall is about 12x ours annually) and pipe it in to the rice fields so the industry does not die out down there.
> 
> Just read where you said that I said "the rice fields should be converted to cattle production..." I obviously mislead you with the point I was trying to make. Point out where I said that. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The only thing you could feasibly do with that land is run a stocker operation. Not cow/calf. That land might, and I said might, allow for 1 cow to every 50 acres, and that's with Brahman type cattle, not Angus or any calf you would get at a high end steakhouse. Cattle ranching, cow/calf wise down there would be completely unsustainable. Near Victoria they got some pretty good grass, and grow quality cattle, but the areas you are referring to cannot and do not run those operations like mine. Read previous posts and learn how to comprehend a "scenario" or "theory" vs. practicality. I never in a million years said that country should be converted into cattle country. That's farm land, and should stay farm land simply because it would be an impossibility to run a profitable cow/calf operation do to the lack of nutritious grass clumps, and just the overall nutrition of the grass. Only a very large Stocker operation could turn a profit down there. And that's only if they could get their big rigs loaded with 75,000/lbs down mud roads to market. That's why my area is "cow country" and down there is "rice/various other crops" country


Matagorda county is among the top leading beef producing counties in the state. Many Rice farmers also run cows either on other land not conducive for growing Rice or on land on a Rice rotation. You could make a living running cattle down here but Rice can be a very profitable crop much more so than running cows especially when its possible to see 10,000 lbs per acre after a ratoon crop. Fact is before modern farming practices this is where much of Texas cattle was raised. the virgin prairie was very conducive to raising beef. However the fertile soil proved to be very good for farming, which many took up and have been providing for their families doing. if not for this theres not a doubt in my mind the coastal prairie would raise more beef than any other area of Texas.


----------



## 3rdcst

This isn't really about cows or rice production. It is about who controls the water. The people who are gaining control over this are people that think that meat and rice comes from HEB.


----------



## Hipboots

"\Just read where you said that I said "the rice fields should be converted to cattle production..." I obviously mislead you with the point I was trying to make. Point out where I said that. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The only thing you could feasibly do with that land is run a stocker operation. Not cow/calf. That land might, and I said might, allow for 1 cow to every 50 acres, and that's with Brahman type cattle, not Angus or any calf you would get at a high end steakhouse. Cattle ranching, cow/calf wise down there would be completely unsustainable. Near Victoria they got some pretty good grass, and grow quality cattle, but the areas you are referring to cannot and do not run those operations like mine. Read previous posts and learn how to comprehend a "scenario" or "theory" vs. practicality. I never in a million years said that country should be converted into cattle country. That's farm land, and should stay farm land simply because it would be an impossibility to run a profitable cow/calf operation do to the lack of nutritious grass clumps, and just the overall nutrition of the grass. Only a very large Stocker operation could turn a profit down there. And that's only if they could get their big rigs loaded with 75,000/lbs down mud roads to market. That's why my area is "cow country" and down there is "rice/various other crops" country[/QUOTE]

You don't make a very big circle, do you? That must be the most unreal analysis of Coastal ranching I have ever read. What you don't realize is rice isn't raised in the marsh. Its actually fertile land that can and does grow excellent bermuda or bahiagrass. There are many very profitable cow/calf operations on the coast, while some still run F1's, most are moving to 1/4 or 3/8 brahma cattle and are running Angus and Herford bulls. One particular ranch, 2 miles from my house, is running 7000 momma cows on 24,000 acres and are currently increasing their heard. They are retaining ownership of a large portion of their calves and utilizing a "certified Angus" program to earn a premium. Guess what that 24,000 acres used to be? Thats right, a rice farm. And honestly, we do have gravel and asphalt roads down here. Crazy enough people have built their working pens, hq's and such along those roads. Ill give you the fact that cattle require more attention here due to the environment, but your blanket analysis of land sutibility is frankly completely wrong. Poor management is not a reflection of poorly suited land.


----------



## GooseCommanderozz

Game-Over said:


> Because we own it! There are families in the areas we are talking about that have owned Colorado water rights long before Austin blew up. Why do we have to pay for Austin's failure to plan for the future?


This. Why should us waterfowl hunters and the rice farmers suffer because of Austin's dumb move? Let them stay low and let Mother Nature fill then back up but keep giving us water. Least rice feeds us. What do jet skis and ski boats provide to the economy?


----------



## dwilliams35

Rancher86 said:


> Oh, and "DWilliams", funny, same last name as me. But you mentioned the cattle industry vs. the rice industry. First of all, you don't see quality cattle as much down there on the coast because the land won't sustain the prime beef I can grow on my grass. That's why you see a lot of Brahman and F-1 crosses, b/c they're hardy and are a lot easier to keep healthy that high dollar Angus or Hereford. You're comparison made absolutely no sense. On my place I can run 1 cow to 20 acres on an average year. 1 cow to 14.75 acres on a good year. And 1 cow to 30-40 acres during drought conditions. These are 2 completely different geographical locations. You can't grow or sustain the quality cattle I run down there on the coast, unless you keep them on a steady diet of Coastal year round, in that case you wouldn't make it through one calving session. You'd be out of business in no time. My country is known for having excellent, nutritious grass (nothing like Kansas or northern Oklahoma though). That's why they rice farm down there, not run cattle. And that's why we run cattle, because even if we could flood the fields that are non-existent b/c of the hilly, ROCKY terrain, it would never work due to geographical conditions. But I'm in agreement and have already done research and apologized about being wrong about rice production in Texas and it's impact on the economy. You're analogy was just not thought out well and completely irrelevant especially when you're talking about the cattle industry, being that it takes up the largest market share of Texas' Ag economy, rice does not even make the top 10. But that doesn't mean I'm saying it's not important. I support all Ag industries and I hate to see this happening to them, but it is what it is. Nothing more. What lawmakers should be doing is figuring out how to get some of that abundant east texas water (their' rainfall is about 12x ours annually) and pipe it in to the rice fields so the industry does not die out down there.
> 
> Just read where you said that I said "the rice fields should be converted to cattle production..." I obviously mislead you with the point I was trying to make. Point out where I said that. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The only thing you could feasibly do with that land is run a stocker operation. Not cow/calf. That land might, and I said might, allow for 1 cow to every 50 acres, and that's with Brahman type cattle, not Angus or any calf you would get at a high end steakhouse. Cattle ranching, cow/calf wise down there would be completely unsustainable. Near Victoria they got some pretty good grass, and grow quality cattle, but the areas you are referring to cannot and do not run those operations like mine. Read previous posts and learn how to comprehend a "scenario" or "theory" vs. practicality. I never in a million years said that country should be converted into cattle country. That's farm land, and should stay farm land simply because it would be an impossibility to run a profitable cow/calf operation do to the lack of nutritious grass clumps, and just the overall nutrition of the grass. Only a very large Stocker operation could turn a profit down there. And that's only if they could get their big rigs loaded with 75,000/lbs down mud roads to market. That's why my area is "cow country" and down there is "rice/various other crops" country


Well, not sure if you're actually talking to me, despite it being addressed to me in your first sentence. The rest of it just left me saying "whatdaheckareyoutalkingabout", especially when you attributed that "convert rice to cattle" thing to me...... We're pretty successfully running 1 AU per 3.5-4 improved acres or so at the moment with rotational grazing.. Of course, I'm a long way from the coast, and a long way from that desert you're playing in.. Brazos bottom, N of I-10..

Meanwhile, rice is just like any other ag commodity: it's got its value just like cattle. The LAST thing any of us in ag should do is start this us-vs-them between other segments of the industry... when one of them goes down in the interest of residential landscaping and recreation, the rest of us aren't far behind..


----------



## G K Chambers

Exactly what county is your operation in Rancher86?

There's more head of cattle in Matagorda County than in Llano and Burnet Counties combined.


----------



## Trouthunter

> Matagorda county is among the top leading beef producing counties in the state.


I know right? LOL! Not to mention Wharton, Jackson and Victoria counties.

The cattle business does quite well down here on the coast Rancher. My rancher runs a cow to 8 acres on my land, which is timber and pasture and he does quite well.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Texas/Publications/County_Estimates/cecatt1.htm

Take a look at District 90...


> First of all, you don't see quality cattle as much down there on the coast because the land won't sustain the prime beef I can grow on my grass.


I guess Santa Gertrudis aren't quality cattle. 

TH


----------



## AvianQuest

The rancher we have our hunting club on is running 5 acres per cow on his Fort Bend Country land, but not nearly so much on his Brazoria and Matagorda County land because much of it is dense forest.


----------



## Rancher86

Okay guys, y'all make some good points. Let me clarify myself. All the cattle you are talking about, like one cow/per 5 acres is on IMPROVED PASTURE and not off natural foraging. It's irrigated, allowing them to graze on coastal and alfalfa... And the reason Matagorda county is a major producer is because of it's stocker operations, not cow/calf. I did my research on that. While they're are some good sized cow/calf operations down there, as mentioned before, they aren't typically (I stress typically) high quality cattle, although some are. But I can guarantee you, that you won't find any high quality cattle grazing natural growing forage. They are heavily subsidized with coastal....... and those ranchers have to put in A LOT of work to create a profitable cow/calf operation. And yes, Santa Gertrudus cattle are high quality, but I guaran-dang-ty you they aren't foraging off natural grass, at least not right on the coast. Maybe a little inland, like Victoria or Cuero, but not directly on the coast. 

For the guy who asked, My Ranch is located in San Saba, County, northwest of Austin 100 miles, just north of Llano. And of course there are more cattle down there. Mainly because of Stocker Operations running 20-30,000 head on 1000 acres, feeding them out to go to market! San Saba county is much more fertile than Llano and especially Burnet, but we don't have hardly any, and NO BIG stocker operations. All our cows are free grazed, not on improved pasture. That's why they'res so many cattle down there. If you were to take away the improved pastures, and irrigation, I guarantee you it would be a different story. We are so hilly and rocky, we don't have the option to raise said coastal crops or of the like... So yes, you are right, that country does have some big, good, solid operations with high quality cattle, but they put A LOT of money into those cattle by supplementing their food source because the grass down there doesn't hold enough protein/minerals for them to free-graze and thrive. However, more hardy cattle like Brahmans, and F-1 mixes can free graze, but they are hardy cattle, and sell for at least 1/3 less than mine do. They also sell for about .50$ lower/per pound (let's say I sell a 700 pound steer, like I sold 325 of last year, I didn't supplement that calf at all, except for 2 winter months when we would feed range cubes, 27% protein, every third day. Other than that, it was all free grazing. I go through Superior Cattle Auctions, a web-based TV broadcasted Auction (if you know anything about cattle you know about Superior), and last year I averaged 712 pounds/per steer, sold them by the truckload, that's 75,000 lbs/truck, and my operation topped the sale (July sale, country wide, over 500 lots of cattle sold) two years ago, and last year we did okay, still in the top 8% of $/per pound, selling our steers at 1.64$/pound, year before, 1.60/pound) 

So yes, you guys are right, they're are some great producers down there. I know several ranches in the Victoria area and they have great grass. The problem is that they sometimes get too much rain, stunting grass growth and making it less efficient, thus meaning the rancher has to supplement his cows more. This year I bought 24 Tons of range cubes for $8500, I've only used 10 tons so far. We're still feeding though. Praying for the spring rains to come. Other than winter range cubes being fed (not as often as they feed further west and south), my cattle free graze year round. Of course I have a rotational grazing program too. I have 4 main herds, separated by age, and rotate them on my 16 pastures. 

And sorry guys, but as far as free grazing goes, like I do, supplementing as little as possible while still maintaining excellent beef, there is no way in heck y'all can run 1 cow to 5 acres. That's absurd. Unless of course you are heavily supplementing them, which y'all can do down there b/c you have the irrigation and soil to grow crops to feed your cattle on. So my point is, if you think that land can sustain 1 cow to 5 acres with the kind of extremely light subsidization I utilize, you're out of your mind. Those guys, and I know for a fact too, because I do business with them and know several people who ranch around victoria, spend A LOT of money to feed their cattle. There is good grass, but not 1 to 5 acre good grass (unless HEAVILY improved pasture with cattle feeding off crops). Sorry, that's just not gonna happen, unless maybe you're in a Montana Valley after good spring rains. 

And like the guy above said, in Brazoria and Matagorda, the only way to run quality cattle is through improved pastures. And that cost A LOT of money. More fertile areas, I admit, like Fort Bend, can run more cows/acre, but they are still heavily supplemented. 

I keep my operating expenses (feed, mineral, salt) as low as possible, and it has proven to be quite profitable for my operation. Those guys down there that run good cattle on improved/irrigated fields, put a ton of money into that and it's really hard to turn a dime when you're putting that much work into sustaining your herd. And I know 2 operators in Matagorda county that run feed lots, one about 5,000 head, and the other 12,000 head. Those are stocker cattle, being fed out to ship to market, and have no relevance to what we are talking about here. There are a CRAPLOAD of cattle down there, but most of it is in the stocker/feed lot sector. 

So let's just DROP THIS SUBJECT GUYS! We've beaten a dead horse enough. Let's go back to talking about the LCRA stuff. Some of y'all proved me wrong, and know your stuff, and I'm not afraid to admit that I learned from it. I was wrong about a lot of stuff, but am also right about a lot of stuff. But I'll admit when I'm wrong and try to clarify myself if possible, whereas it seams some of you are too prideful to make that gesture. So, thanks to y'all out there that corrected me when I was wrong, but I can tell right off the bat that some of the people speaking out on here don't know the cattle industry. Just because you look up a "cattle population/per county" map, doesn't mean it's relevant to what we are talking about (cow/calf vs. feeder and not to mention the dairy production down there, which takes up a LARGE portion of those cattle).

So go back to talking about rice farming and the LCRA, I deal with cattle enough and this all this talk and explaining is getting old. So if you guys wouldn't mind, lets just DROP IT. I'll even say I was wrong about everything I said, just so y'all will drop it. I'm done


----------



## dwilliams35

Rancher86 said:


> Okay guys, y'all make some good points. Let me clarify myself. All the cattle you are talking about, like one cow/per 5 acres is on IMPROVED PASTURE and not off natural foraging. It's irrigated, allowing them to graze on coastal and alfalfa... And the reason Matagorda county is a major producer is because of it's stocker operations, not cow/calf. I did my research on that. While they're are some good sized cow/calf operations down there, yada yada yada ad nauseum


 Glad you're done. Now you can claim the title as the undisputed king of cattle in San Saba county.... because it's obvious you're a little lacking in knowing just how we do things in other parts of the state, with what resources and with what results.. Making blanket statements about the rest of the world based on nothing but the conditions in your own little slice of heaven up there rarely works out like you want them to: which is basically the whole battle here. We've got different climates, different soil types, etc.: you can't frame agriculture in Wharton county under the same rules as San Saba; don't even think about going to Dalhart: we all deal with different rules, different resources, different markets, etc.: the one constant is that we're stuck with the conditions that we're dealt with, and being stuck with no water as a result of the growth of the residential sector is a condition which is becoming commonplace: I don't know what all those people figure they're going to eat now that they've got their McMansion, however.

We've got to figure this out as a package: people aren't moving out, and people still have to eat. the pointing fingers is the one thing that doesn't get anything fixed..


----------



## 3rdcst

It isn't uncommon for farmers in Matagorda County to harvest over 15000 lb. per acre of rice for both crops.


----------



## Rancher86

Okay, you're completely right. Let's just drop it. This thread has gotten way off topic, and you're right in saying that what applies to my area doesn't apply to a total geographic change like down there on the coast. And you stated I was making "blanket statemets" comparing apples to apples cattle production up here vs. down there??? Show me where I said that. I, on several occasions, pointed out the fact that these are two completely different geographical conditions, and never, ever, said that what applies to my country applies to down there. Do you actually read what I say? In the past couple of days I"ve called two of my associates that run large stocker operations in Maragora County, and they affirmed what I have stated here and in my last post. I pointed out, again, on several occasions, that down there the majority of land is improved and irrigated. Cattle rarely FREE GRAZE (except in more grass rich counties like Victoria, Gonzales), and there A LOT of stocker operations making up the majority of your cattle numbers, not to mention dairy, which also makes up a large market share down there. And, you are wrong in stating that I was comparing everything to my geographical area. I stated dozens of times that their is a totally different climate and soil type.... down there, and never compared apples to apples as far as cattle production goes up here versus down there. That's an ignorant statement, or you mis-understoood me. Just in my last post alone, how man times did I mention that country down there has very rich soil, more suited for crop land than grazing land???? ... (or at least FREE GRAZING land, as a large amount of cattle production down there is on improved pastures), but I guess you overlooked that 500 word statement I made about that. All my figures were from certified sources (TSCRA), and I was correct in stating that Matagorda county has such a large cattle population because of large stocker steer operations (as well as Dairy). Cow/calf operations down there don't make up the majority, but there are some sizeable operations that make it work for them, again, on improved pastures 90% of the time (and those improved and sometimes irrigated pastures cost A LOT to implement and keep maintained, but if they can make it work then they know what they are doing). Whereas in my area, free grazing is all their is. There are a few very small stocker operations, but 95% of it is cow/calf. And, as someone said, the "desert" I ranch in is completely different than down there. True. Very true. But I'm not in west Texas guys. Look at a map and locate San Saba County. It's about an hour west of Waco. Hardly a "desert" and yes, we do have very, very good, natural foraging for cattle. I stress "natural foraging", not on improved and/or irrigated crop land, simply because we don't have the flat, good soil, and otherwise ideal conditions for that. We are way too rocky and hilly, but still grow very good grass and shrub forage, with grass clumps being very close together, whereas in west texas grass clumps might be 2 feet apart, my country hold grass clumps 6-8" apart, resulting in an abundance of very nutritious grass (that is, when there is rain to support that grass, and in conjunction with proper rotational grazing. Overgrazing and undergrazing up here can be the difference in a 600 pound calf come shipping time and a 750 pound calf).

Also, for those that say Matagorda county has such "higher" cow/calf counts than my area, San Saba County... Matagorda County currently has around 53,000 head in inventory, 15% of that being Dairy cows. And more than half being off Stocker operations. And around half the cattle down there graze on improved coastal, alfalfa.... pastures (Some irrigated, some not).Whereas, San Saba County currently has about 50,000 head of cattle, NO Dairy cows, and less than 10% comprised of Stocker operations. These are FACTS from the USDA and TSCRA. Just trying to make the point that for those that said Matagorda has one of the highest cow counts in the state, that is 100% wrong. Counties like Comanche (40 miles north of San Saba) and Nacadoches, hold over 100,00 head on average, due to their large cow/calf operations and huge stocker operations. Just making a point pointing out facts and proving some of you wrong. However, I do understand that Matagorda would have a much larger cow count if you took out the croplands.

And it kind of ****** me off you say "now you can claim the undisputed king of cattle in San Saba, County." That's bull and you know it. I never, ever, ever stated anything like that. I'm just a run of the mill operator out here, and I'll be the first to admit that their are other ranches in San Saba county, old, established ranches like mine that have improved pastures and natural pastures that run a better operation than I do. Just because I might have one of the largest ranches in the county, doesn't mean I claim to be the "king" of the cattle industry up here. I"m struggling just to turn a dime after the drought wiped out 40% of cow/calf operators up here. The only reason I'm still in business is because it's my passion, and I will do everything in my power to keep it running. Without the 60 deer hunters I lease year round to, and supplemental income I can draw on in down years from my oil/gas ventures, the cattle alone wouldn't support the ranches operating costs. Every rancher up here has to diversify (deer hunting, selling hog hunts on horseback, Turkey day hunts, pig hunts, selling gravel from our creeks.... and the list goes on and on) to make their operation work. So I never claimed to be anything close to the "king" of ranching up here. That's an ignorant and ***** statement to make, especially after I ADMITTED I was wrong about several things that y'all were right on. But, I guess that shows a little about your character and what kind of man you are (someone who makes absurd and rude assumptions backed by no evidence: I would use some other choice words about your character but I don't want to get flagged). I think you get my point though.

So, I think this "side-topic" has been played out. I've said my piece and apologized when I was wrong, and proved where I was right. At least I have the balls to do so. So if you guys want to continue your conversation about the LCRA and rice farming, by all means, please do so. This thread is not about ranching, which it has turned out to be about. All I did was initially offer a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE on the situation, even though it's not my perspective. I support all Ag. industries in Texas, and could give a **** about Austin and their liberal agenda. All it was was another viewpoint, that's all!!!! Some of you clearly got worked up and thought I was speaking in support of the LCRA, completely missing the point. I hate them as much as any of you do. All Ag industries in Texas are in this together, and it's stupid bickering like this that's dragging us down. All the industries need to work together to provide viable and logical solutions to the problems we face, not bicker back and forth, which gets us nowhere, effectively doing exactly what the liberals want us to do. Fight eachother, not them as we ALL should be doing. So let's drop it.



dwilliams35 said:


> Glad you're done. Now you can claim the title as the undisputed king of cattle in San Saba county.... because it's obvious you're a little lacking in knowing just how we do things in other parts of the state, with what resources and with what results.. Making blanket statements about the rest of the world based on nothing but the conditions in your own little slice of heaven up there rarely works out like you want them to: which is basically the whole battle here. We've got different climates, different soil types, etc.: you can't frame agriculture in Wharton county under the same rules as San Saba; don't even think about going to Dalhart: we all deal with different rules, different resources, different markets, etc.: the one constant is that we're stuck with the conditions that we're dealt with, and being stuck with no water as a result of the growth of the residential sector is a condition which is becoming commonplace: I don't know what all those people figure they're going to eat now that they've got their McMansion, however.
> 
> We've got to figure this out as a package: people aren't moving out, and people still have to eat. the pointing fingers is the one thing that doesn't get anything fixed..


----------



## 3rdcst

I started this thread to inform people of the perils of what is happening to the water supply that is the lifeblood of the coastal prairie. These decision aren't be made by unbiased well meaning people.The decision making process has been hi jacked by self serving interest of the lake owners in Austin.We do have a say in this fight only if we unite and stand firm.


----------



## 3rdcst

Latest word on the water issue is the LCRA will sell water at a 91% price increase. This after lakes reach appropriate levels. This will price most farmers out of business.


----------



## twdjr

3rdcst said:


> Latest word on the water issue is the LCRA will sell water at a 91% price increase. This after lakes reach appropriate levels. This will price most farmers out of business.


Sad deal, I heard this yesterday through one of my farmers.


----------



## oOslikOo

Thats a crock of straight up sheep chit


----------



## G K Chambers

3rdcst said:


> I started this thread to inform people of the perils of what is happening to the water supply that is the lifeblood of the coastal prairie. These decision aren't be made by unbiased well meaning people.The decision making process has been hi jacked by self serving interest of the lake owners in Austin.We do have a say in this fight only if we unite and stand firm.


The LCRA Board of Directors is composed of 15 members appointed to six-year terms by the governor and confirmed by the Texas Senate.


----------



## 3rdcst

The LCRA Board of Directors is composed of 15 members appointed to six-year terms by the governor and confirmed by the Texas Senate.
Whats your point. Appointed by Gov Hairdoo ?


----------



## G K Chambers

19 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the Texas Senate.


----------



## 3rdcst

Nothing to do with political parties. Everything to go with politics. Lake owners using a natural disaster ( drought ) for their own gain. Ricefields represent the largest functioning wetland eco system in Texas. The environmental disaster that is approaching will be of Biblical proportions.


----------



## Goose Lover

Biblical might be a little strong.

Really, Really, Really bad is probably appropriate. 

A volcanic eruption of the Yellowstone National Park that blankets North American in ash or the asteroid that hit off of the Yucatan Peninsula millions of years ago would qualify as Biblical.


----------



## 3rdcst

1.Asteroid, volcano, Biblical 2.Losing ricefields


----------



## Goose Lover

I can go with that.


----------



## G K Chambers

3rdcst said:


> Whats your point.


Look at the LRCA Board of Directors:

http://www.lcra.org/about/leadership/pages/board-of-directors.aspx

I can't identify a single dirty Austin hippy in the bunch.

Note the Board Chair's background:

"Timothy T. Timmerman of Austin is a real estate investor/developer and owns Commerce Texas Properties, Inc. He developed the Star Ranch Community and Golf Course north of Austin. He is a certified public accountant and holds a Texas real estate brokerâ€™s license. He is a member of the board of directors and chairman of the Audit Committee for Citizens, Inc., a New York Stock Exchange company. He serves on the board of the Round Rock Community Foundation and also serves on the board of St. David's Medical Center in Round Rock. He is a member of Good Shepherd Episcopal Church of Austin. Timmerman received a bachelorâ€™s degree from Texas A&M University and a masterâ€™s degree from The University of Texas at Austin. Gov. Rick Perry appointed him to the Board in February 2008 and named him LCRA Board Chair in January 2011. He was reappointed in 2013 for a term that expires in 2019."

I suspect Mr. Timmerman knows where the food in HEB comes from and is more concerned with making money.

Jeez Randy-

If you really want folks to be aware of whats going then lose the cattle raising HEB hippy concerns and look at the people that are the actual policy makers that are actually calling the shots. These people live in a lot of y'all's communities. Contact them and tell them what you feel about how this is playing out.

There is an email contact link of the Board of Director's webpage. Click on it and give them a earful/page full.

Internet rants are all well and good but firing for effect might serve us better


----------



## daddyeaux

GK you are right on about the complaining. It does absolutely no good to cry and complain in here. Cry to the people who make the decisions if you want change.
Thanks for posting about the website and how to get in contact with this board.


----------



## 3rdcst

It is always about money. The Lake people in Austin have no care in the world about waterfowl,farming,the environment. Water is the limiting factor on the future growth and money making in real estate n the Austin area.These are the people who are making decisions about our waterfowling future.


----------



## Rancher86

I completely second what this guy says. I personally know (not really know, had business dealings with) the chairman of the board of the LCRA, been to dinner with him (business dinner) once and to be honest with y'all he seems like a nice, sensible guy. But like I said before, I work with TSCRA, and that's what this meeting was about, and when it came down to business he turned into a stone.... he acted as if the water in the highland lakes was worth more than gold. He, and I heard him say it, actually made a statement about the rice farmers:
(Now don't jump all over me on this: we were lobbying AGAINST the LCRA, there was a rice farmer Rep. at the table, and he got into it big-time with Mr. Timmerman. I am JUST RELAYING WHAT WAS SAID, so for the love of God don't jump all over me)

The statement was basically telling the Rice Farming community that their plight was SIGNIFICANTLY less important than "Austin's growing needs." The Rice Farmer Lobbyist lost it. I thought the rice farmer lobbyist (can't remember his name, but a great guy who made a very, very convincing and logical argument) was going to beat the heck out of Mr. Timmerman. He did get up and walk off though. This was toward the end of the dinner, and needless to say, was very awkward for the remainder. Mr. Timmerman did however pay for the dinner, which amounted to around 2 grand i'm guessing (10 guys, bottles of wine..... Sullivan's Steakhouse). 

I can only describe him as a WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING. He got real vicious when it came to letting water downstream for the rice community, which I support. This meeting took place a couple of months after the height of the drought, in 2011 I believe, after we had received about 8 inches of rain over the course of a month. 

I just can't describe the gall of this guy, and how deceiving he was. When he got dirty, he GOT DIRTY and fast, like a switch was turned on. Scary stuff, knowing y'alls community lies in the hands of someone like this. Man y'all got it rough, and more and more of people like Timmerman are heading up important councils around here. I freakin hate Austin and if I had a choice, which I don't, I'd leave this place and just go live in the country.... get away from all this. Although I'm sure my operation will eventually get caught up in it, say 50 or so years from now. God knows what the world or our area will be like then.


----------



## AvianQuest

3rdcst said:


> It is always about money. The Lake people in Austin have no care in the world about waterfowl,farming,the environment. Water is the limiting factor on the future growth and money making in real estate n the Austin area.These are the people who are making decisions about our waterfowling future.


True...

Our influence is pretty minuscule if you think about it. Waterfowl hunters make up less than 1/2 of 1% of the population. Only half of us are DU members and even less are active in conservation/hunting matters.

Worse yet, we divide ourselves with silly arguments and lame excuses why we don't give back to the sport and work to insure that duck hunting will still be around for our grand kids.


----------



## 3rdcst

Waterfowl hunters are a minority,but environmentalist ,bird watchers farmers etc together make pretty good splash. This a lot more about where the future of the Texas environment then where to go duck hunting.


----------



## Goose Lover

The sad fact is that Texas has never had much of a record in conservation. 

Waterfowl habitat in Texas is in a death spiral. Environmentalists, hunters, birdwatcher and farmers have zero political power. 

We can do what we can to improve habitat but the forces against us are overwhelming. 

The national wildlife refuge system is the single largest landowner on the Texas middle coast and should be an oasis of great habitat but instead allowed their lands to collapse due to no management. There has been some recent improvement so hopefully they won't slide back. 

And this week in 1976 the album Frampton Comes Alive went to number one on the charts in the United States. Bet some of you'll can remember that.


----------



## daddyeaux

LOL.....Remember that album well


----------



## Trouthunter

I sure remember the album...I was a senior in HS.

TH


----------

