# My letter to the Governor



## saved (Feb 1, 2014)

Governor Abbott,
As you are aware Texas regularly suffers from droughts and water shortages. I believe with proper management this can be overcome. Right now we are experiencing water abundance and allowing that water, billions of gallons, to run off into the gulf. This happens just about every year.

Also every year there is spring melts and flood waters from other states that are ushered into the gulf. Our nation has built millions of miles of roads and highways to carry commerce and traffic. Why not build a water highway system to carry water to areas where it can be stored for times of need? 

Right now we have many storage lakes in Texas that are 25 to as much a 70 feet low on water. Why not have ways to shuttle some of that water into those Texas lakes and have it stored. Also excess water could be used to filter into our underground storage areas. 

I believe that this would be a wise and productive venture that would help sustain our state in its time of need. Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely
Gerald Schumacher


----------



## Crusader (Jan 31, 2014)

How many gallons of gas you are willing to burn per month to push this water around?


----------



## saved (Feb 1, 2014)

Crusader said:


> How many gallons of gas you are willing to burn per month to push this water around?


 No gas needed. :wink:


----------



## Crusader (Jan 31, 2014)

saved said:


> No gas needed. :wink:


Ahhh... Nice trolling ;-)

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Longshot270 (Aug 5, 2011)

It would take lots of energy to shuffle that much water around, IF the pipeline infrastructure was in place. The current water infrastructure is limping along as it is in most places.

But at least there are some projects "in the pipeline" to help
-San Antonio's ASR (Aquifer Storage and Recovery) where they use a small, isolated aquifer to temporarily store water.
-Two DPR (Direct Potable Reuse) projects, but I think one got disassembled.
-"purple pipe" water reuse for non-potable applications
-Desal isn't too far out


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

Mr. Schumacher, don't let the Neo-Luddites detract you from your quest. Someday, probably sooner than we expect, Texas water will be at a premium. Even now, the subdivision I live in occasionally rations water use because we are on well water and aquifers do get low from time to time. What you propose is not only a good idea, at some time in the future it will be a necessity. Before we get there, the smart people will have come up with an alternative.

I'd like to know what kinda feedback you get from the Gov.


----------



## saved (Feb 1, 2014)

Ox Eye said:


> Mr. Schumacher, don't let the Neo-Luddites detract you from your quest. Someday, probably sooner than we expect, Texas water will be at a premium. Even now, the subdivision I live in occasionally rations water use because we are on well water and aquifers do get low from time to time. What you propose is not only a good idea, at some time in the future it will be a necessity. Before we get there, the smart people will have come up with an alternative.
> 
> I'd like to know what kinda feedback you get from the Gov.


 If he responds I will let you know.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Water rates just below oxygen for human survival. I try not to complain about excessive rain like Lake Livingston has had this year, because water is life. Lake Livingston was built for drinking water. Within the last week I talked to a crew that is running yet another large pipe out into the lake for suction of drinking water to a filtering process. His words "We are only running this one out 900 feet because in this part of the lake that puts us 30 feet below the surface." A month or so back I was talking with a TRA man who predicted that in the future the lake level will get low much more often due to the demand for water.

Industry along the channel already has pipelines for water, but it is non-potable the way they use it. At some point in the future, what *saved* wrote about will have to happen.


----------



## Longshot270 (Aug 5, 2011)

Whitebassfisher said:


> Water rates just below oxygen for human survival. I try not to complain about excessive rain like Lake Livingston has had this year, because water is life. Lake Livingston was built for drinking water. Within the last week I talked to a crew that is running yet another large pipe out into the lake for suction of drinking water to a filtering process. His words "We are only running this one out 900 feet because in this part of the lake that puts us 30 feet below the surface." A month or so back I was talking with a TRA man who predicted that in the future the lake level will get low much more often due to the demand for water.
> 
> Industry along the channel already has pipelines for water, but it is non-potable the way they use it. At some point in the future, what *saved* wrote about will have to happen.


Exactly, Texas is in for a big surprise in the next few decades and I'm not even considering the impact of industry. Community water systems are required by law to provide water to anyone within their service area. Some of the big water systems that span thousands of rural acres are finding out the hard way that big ranches getting broken into 50 ranchettes are very expensive customers to accommodate. One connection turning into 10+ connections requires retrenching new, larger water mains that stretch for many miles, additional wells and/or additional surface water rights and/or interconnections with surrounding water systems, storage tanks, pressure maintenance, etc. None of that is cheap. And due to the necessity of water, the State regulates utility rates through the Public Utility Commission.


----------



## redexpress (Apr 5, 2010)

The "Capers Ridge Project" is supposed to be approved and may be started. City of Houston is building a new pump station north of Dayton to pump Trinity River water into an open canal that will empty into Luces Bayou/Lake Houston. It's been talked about since the 1950's.
I assume that will draw down Lake Livingston levels during dry spells.
I don't understand why Lake Houston isn't dredged. Should be able to increase the water capacity substantially.


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

I agree with the need, now and in the future. I also agree that, in periods of excess, (which happens every year) there ought to be a way to store the excess.

Now, can anyone explain to me what happened with the Wallisville lake project? I was told that "we" ( all saltwater fishing people) were against it because it would divert freshwater from flowing into the estuaries. Sounded right then, and still sounds right now.

However, isn't there a way, when we have SO MUCH excess that the excess could be diverted, using nothing but gravity...to a side-lake for storage for when we needed it? That water could eventually be released back into the bays when the bays aren't getting proper freshwater naturally. Obviously, it could also be used for freshwater needs for neighboring communities.

Clearly, I am not an engineer, so I need someone smarter than me to explain why the Wallisville project couldn't have been used for excess water only.

thanks...richg99


----------



## Longshot270 (Aug 5, 2011)

richg99 said:


> I agree with the need, now and in the future. I also agree that, in periods of excess, (which happens every year) there ought to be a way to store the excess.
> 
> Now, can anyone explain to me what happened with the Wallisville lake project? I was told that "we" ( all saltwater fishing people) were against it because it would divert freshwater from flowing into the estuaries. Sounded right then, and still sounds right now.
> 
> ...


http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/Locations/WallisvilleLakeProjectOffice.aspx

Found this on USACE website.


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

So, it seems that two bald eagles halted the construction????

Wait until the people are thirsty. Sheesh.....


----------



## saved (Feb 1, 2014)

richg99 said:


> I agree with the need, now and in the future. I also agree that, in periods of excess, (which happens every year) there ought to be a way to store the excess.
> 
> Now, can anyone explain to me what happened with the Wallisville lake project? I was told that "we" ( all saltwater fishing people) were against it because it would divert freshwater from flowing into the estuaries. Sounded right then, and still sounds right now.
> 
> ...


 You are correct that water flow could be done just like it flows down the Trinity. Also at the lake Livingston dam they are installing a hydro electric system. Doing that at other dams could help in pumping through pipeline highways. There are other ways as well, but in the end water will be needed and we can either start work now and save money or pay way more later as water runs out.

Not only does the moving of water to storage areas help in times of need it opens the door for more sport fishing and other activities all of which take in money for the state to build its recreational infrastructure.

Lastly farmers would benefit from, this as they could irrigate their crops in the more arid areas. This is a win, win situation not to mention it is needed.


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

Texas has no shortage of water sources. Most of the time water just naturally flows downhill. But, on occasion, these rivers (and the streams and creeks that flow into them) experience excessive runoffs from heavy rains. That excess, when it occurs, could be captured for storage. I don't imagine that could be done on the cheap, but drought conditions also come at a price. Remedy done at our leisure would be much preferable to the conditions of crisis.


----------



## UnclePoPo (Jun 4, 2013)

You will not get a response from him or his office. You will now be inundated with emails from his hired ************ asking for campaign donations and such. I wrote him regarding the game warden caught and sited for poaching but not fired. Now I get 10 emails a week from them wanting money. I keep marking it as junk mail but somehow it will not go to the junk mail folder.

Good Luck


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

The State Constitution make some of what is being said very hard to do. Under the Texas Constitution the local water shed has first rights to the water. A municipality outside the local water shed will not build a new system to transport water to say San Antonio
The reason is that if in the future the local water shed needs what is "excess" water now, guess who's high dollar canal or pipeline goes dry? This is a closely guarded protection an last I knew most of the members of the Committee responsible for water rights in the Texas legislature are from East Texas. And all the high ranking members are.


----------



## markbrumbaugh (Jul 13, 2010)

I have a ranch and collect rainwater off the roof to run the cabins. 11 inches per year will keep us flushing and washing dishes, even showers. Gravity runs it all. A few more rain tanks, I could water the yard.
Meanwhile...Hey TRA...this would be a good time to crack open them gates a bit more!


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

SeaOx 230C said:


> The State Constitution make some of what is being said very hard to do.


All the more reason to get started on a plan. The State Constitution is being amended all the time. No reason it can't be amended in furtherance of such a concept as water management.

The EPA, if left to it's own agenda of expansion of the definition of "navigable waterways", will become yet another obstacle to overcome. Nipping in the bud its agenda of ever increasing authority NOW, would be advisable.


----------



## Crusader (Jan 31, 2014)

Guys, how do you propose to move water around? Texas is kinda big...


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

Millions of barrels of gas/oil are piped across the country every day. But, how to move water around ... don't have a clue.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

markbrumbaugh said:


> Meanwhile...Hey TRA...this would be a good time to crack open them gates a bit more!


They heard you Mark, and CLOSED DOWN!!! Never mind the 59,000+ going by Rosser.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

Ox Eye said:


> All the more reason to get started on a plan. The State Constitution is being amended all the time. No reason it can't be amended in furtherance of such a concept as water management.
> 
> The EPA, if left to it's own agenda of expansion of the definition of "navigable waterways", will become yet another obstacle to overcome. Nipping in the bud its agenda of ever increasing authority NOW, would be advisable.


The EPA has nothing to do with the topic. It is a Texas State Constitution water rights issue. And it was written that way to protect rural people from being taken advantage of by City's and industry. And to some extent from greedy local politicians who may sell off the local water regardless of future local needs.

What happens when let's say Livingston is as big as Houston and wants.their water back instead of pipelining it to San Antonio? What y'all are proposing is what California does. Dam the rivers and take the ground water and send it to the major cities.so they can water their lawns,keep the swimming pool full and the water park flowing.


----------



## saved (Feb 1, 2014)

SeaOx 230C said:


> What happens when let's say Livingston is as big as Houston and wants.their water back instead of pipelining it to San Antonio? What y'all are proposing is what California does. Dam the rivers and take the ground water and send it to the major cities.so they can water their lawns,keep the swimming pool full and the water park flowing.


 Not at all. You are talking out of state. This is for in state use. The areas that need to water transported should be paying for it, not those doing the transporting or supplying it.

There is no doubt a lot of logistics involved here, but doing nothing is not the answer. it needs to be started. In fact it should have been started 30 years ago.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

What SeaOx is stating makes sense, but if San Antonio and Austin needed water due to low Edwards Aquifer while Lake Livingston is busting at the seams I see nothing wrong with it. Livingston should not be forced to sell if low, I like the state law in that respect. Water is a necessity though and it seems we could do better than what we are now.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

Whitebassfisher said:


> What SeaOx is stating makes sense, but if San Antonio and Austin needed water due to low Edwards Aquifer while Lake Livingston is busting at the seams I see nothing wrong with it. Livingston should not be forced to sell if low, I like the state law in that respect. Water is a necessity though and it seems we could do better than what we are now.


Exactly!!!! But there in lies the rub!!!!! San Antonio, Austin , El Paso who ever can pay to build that pipeline or canal right know. I would be willing to bet they could get TRA or Sabine River Authority to fill it up. Problem is a City is not going to shell out the Billions of dollars needed to build it knowing that there can be no guarantee of future water flow.

No Saved I am not talking Out of State use. I am talking about redirecting water from a Local Watershed to some other part of the State. I brought up California because what you are describing is what California did. They do not have State Constitution water rights protections so the big Cities basically take what water they want from the rural areas of the State. And the sad thing is it still is not enough, they need more for their lawns and golf.courses.

Say what you want but I for one am glad to be from a State that does not allow.the big city to take what they want from the rural areas regardless of the future of those rural areas.


----------



## saved (Feb 1, 2014)

Actually I think the federal government needs to chip in here. I am not simply proposing a water system for Texas, although that is a priority, I am proposing one for much of the US.

Snow run off and flood waters should all be diverted at least in part from other states to areas that have the need. It would open up a great deal of land for produce as well as open up areas of recreation and produce more jobs.

As I said there are some real logistics to deal with in the political arena as well as the infrastructure area, but waiting until we are in the shape of CA. is not the solution.


----------



## whsalum (Mar 4, 2013)

I think this issue was on a ballot in Jefferson county a few years back and was voted down. We have to be very careful giving away water when there is a surplus because those same people will want it when we have a deficiency !!


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Very interesting discussion here.

So, just to throw another Wench into the fire ( just a joke)..

Does the rain, when it is falling, actually belong to any one community, or to even one State? 

If it falls in Tarrant county, slides into the Trinity, and passes through Lake Livingston ( or any other place). and comes out through the dam and finds its way into Galveston Bay......at what point does "ownership" belong to whom?

Seems to this old fart that if it belongs to anyone, it belongs to all of the residents of the State. 

Now, whoever pays to divert it and store it, might well be the "owner" for the purpose of "selling" it to whoever needs it in the future..

This comment is simply thrown out to further the discussion. I have no answers, either. richg99


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

There are already I think around twelve reservoirs that service the Dallas Fort Worth are and they want to reach out side of there watershed and build more reservoirs the send the water back to the city. The people that work and play on those rivers want no part of it and rightly so. On a given summer day upwards of 60% of the daily water use in the Dallas area is used to water grass
The problem is in part how we use the available water as opposed to how much there is available.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Actually, I guess right now if a city wanted to pay for the pipeline and abide by a contract, that the TRA would sell water. I am only guessing, but so long as Lake Livingston has open gates and the lake is 131 they may sell? But will a city pay that money for a pipeline knowing that it won't help if Livingston is low? Would Federal assistance be needed? If so, the dad burn Feds would be making the rules, and I don't want that either! I don't want to be restricted on flushing my toilet because a city 3 watersheds to the west wants water for their grass.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

San Antonio just approved building a pipeline to bring water from the Caldwell area to San Antonio. San Antonio is pumping water from Gonzales County to Bexar County. Corpus Christi pumps water from Lake Texana to the Nueces River for city use. 
It was at one time illegal to move water from one river drainage to another. But big money persuaded the legislature to make exceptions.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Whitebassfisher said:


> Actually, I guess right now if a city wanted to pay for the pipeline and abide by a contract, that the TRA would sell water. I am only guessing, but so long as Lake Livingston has open gates and the lake is 131 they may sell? But will a city pay that money for a pipeline knowing that it won't help if Livingston is low? Would Federal assistance be needed? If so, the dad burn Feds would be making the rules, and I don't want that either! I don't want to be restricted on flushing my toilet because a city 3 watersheds to the west wants water for their grass.


San Antonio is raising residential water fees. Fees will double before the first drop of water gets to San Antonio from Caldwell. People are paying so the future generations will have water.


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Yea, I guess the people in California are finally coming to the conclusion that "something has to be done"?. 

The problem with only fining the excessive users is that the rich guys will just keep on running the water, and pay the fines. The fines must not be high enough, or they should accelerate logarithmically.

Now, if I could convince my wife, (and all of our neighbors) that cacti would look just fine on a sand base in the front yard.....my part of contributing to the problem would be lessened.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

Funny you say that Richg. Else Paso offers incentives to take out you grass lawn and replace it with native fauna, rocks, or concrete.


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

SeaOx.....sounds like a plan to me.

Since Houston often has months of torrents of rain....then a month or two of NOTHING...I don't think that we will see that sort of logical, reasonable and appropriate incentive program here. 

We'll just dump the water down the sewer until things get worse. At least the water that we dump here will find its way to the bay. That is, of course, OK with me. richg99


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

SeaOx 230C said:


> The EPA has nothing to do with the topic.


Yes, it does, or, so it is convinced. If it thinks it has say-so over an individual's property rights to build something as uncomplicated as a stock pond, then they certainly are going to stick their nose in a major State water project.

Yes, there will be complications that will need to be worked out, but that does not provide any rationale for never doing anything in the first place.


----------



## Longshot270 (Aug 5, 2011)

Texas is incredibly protective of it's water sicne everyone is down stream from someone. As much complaining people make about gov regulation, in this case it makes sense to keep things as clean as possible from a quality and availability standpoint. Our water rights and water quality standards were way ahead of the feds and most other states. Even before Texas cut some fat by grouping multiple agencies into the TNRCC, predecessor to TCEQ.

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/water_rights/wr-permitting/wr_amiregulated.html
*What is State (Surface) Water?*


The water of the ordinary flow, underflow, and tides of every flowing river, natural stream, and lake, and of every bay or arm of the Gulf of Mexico, and the stormwater, floodwater, and rainwater of every river, natural stream, and watercourse in the state.
Water which is imported from any source outside the boundaries of the state for use in the state, and which is transported through the bed and banks of any navigable stream within the state, or by utilizing any facilities owned or operated by the state.
State water _does not_ include percolating groundwater; nor does it include diffuse surface rainfall runoff, groundwater seepage, or  springwater before it reaches the watercourse.

*Do I Need a Permit to Use State Water?*

Anyone who wants to use surface water in Texas must first get permission from the state, unless they are using the water for one of several â€œexempt usesâ€ in the Texas Water Code.
Some exemptions include: domestic and livestock use, wildlife management, emergencies like wildfires, and other specified uses (See Texas Water Code Section 11.142











ChuChu said:


> San Antonio just approved building a pipeline to bring water from the Caldwell area to San Antonio. San Antonio is pumping water from Gonzales County to Bexar County. Corpus Christi pumps water from Lake Texana to the Nueces River for city use.
> It was at one time illegal to move water from one river drainage to another. But big money persuaded the legislature to make exceptions.


They've got some big wells out near Nixon, I got to see them one time. Comes out a bit hot though :rotfl:


----------



## Longshot270 (Aug 5, 2011)

Whitebassfisher said:


> Actually, I guess right now if a city wanted to pay for the pipeline and abide by a contract, that the TRA would sell water. I am only guessing, but so long as Lake Livingston has open gates and the lake is 131 they may sell? But will a city pay that money for a pipeline knowing that it won't help if Livingston is low? Would Federal assistance be needed? If so, the dad burn Feds would be making the rules, and I don't want that either! I don't want to be restricted on flushing my toilet because a city 3 watersheds to the west wants water for their grass.


The feds already make the rules. States are required to have their regulations equally stringent or more stringent than the EPA. In many cases, we were more stringent before they even put rules in place.

Texas is behind the curve on preventing distribution contamination due to backflow and backsiphonage though. :headknock


----------



## Mattsfishin (Aug 23, 2009)

You have to get people to learn how to conserve water and stop wasting it. When I wash my car I park it on the grass and wash it there. I recycle washing maching water also. Plus I have a lot of cactus growing in rock covered beds. That reminds me there was someone on here that wanted some cactus and I failed to connect with them. Back to the issue. There are already deals out there such as San Jacinto River Authority has a agreement to pump water from the Trinity. I am fed up with all the big towns taking farm and ranch land to build reservoirs for their use and wasting it. They want to build Bedias creek reservoir and pump it down to Conroe for houston. That's BS. Take natural bottom land that belongs to someone that has had the land in their family forever and flood it. Then they have a few dollars and no homestead. People need to wake up and learn to use what we have including myself.


----------



## whsalum (Mar 4, 2013)

Where this argument gets dicey is when the water is being moved by pipe line from one water basin to another. The folks that pay for the pipeline will require a contract for a certain amount to be supplied before they pay for the way to move it. In Coastal communities where salt water intrusion is a real issue it gets complicated during a drought.


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

The Houston area obtains its water from lakes Livingston, Conroe and Houston. But, it has and does not use two prime areas for rainwater capture, which are the Addicks and Barker reservoirs. Both areas have earthen dams that slow down excess rainwater and slowly releases it to prevent flooding. Both are simply unused low land areas, but they could be dug out to create lakes for water storage. They would not solve long-term issues, but they would certainly provide some breathing room in the meantime.


----------



## Crusader (Jan 31, 2014)

Ox Eye said:


> Millions of barrels of gas/oil are piped across the country every day. But, how to move water around ... don't have a clue.


They burn gas/oil to move aforementioned gas/oil. So, basically, cost of moving is included in the price at the pump. Who is going to pay for gas burned to move water?
Nevermind things like:
- water has higher density than oil
- water harbors life, which will regularly clog your pipes and will require significant maintenance over long term

This does not make it impossible, but you better find your payer first. And I am not fond of being one who pays for water delivery to someone who decided to live in very dry areas.


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

Crusader said:


> And I am not fond of being one who pays for water delivery to someone who decided to live in very dry areas.


If anything, this is all years down the road. So, I'm not clear on what your current antagonism is. But, I suspect humanitarianism is not your strong suit. Being years away, tho, odds are you may never have to worry about it. Think positive!


----------



## Crusader (Jan 31, 2014)

Ox Eye said:


> If anything, this is all years down the road. So, I'm not clear on what your current antagonism is.


My "current antagonism" is based on a notion that moving water and maintaining related facilities is probably expensive and someone will have to pay for it. As of now more than 45% of my income is funding wars all over the planet and feeds bunch of people otherwise completely useless to me. I am certainly sensitive to new ideas from people who's only strong suit is "humanitarianism". I'd rather listen to those who's forte is logic and accountability.



> But, I suspect humanitarianism is not your strong suit.


No one cares about your innuendos and/or veiled insults.



> Being years away, tho, odds are you may never have to worry about it. Think positive!


Yes, this is exactly how people get into tight situations.


----------



## shadslinger (Aug 21, 2005)

Whenever a natural resource is removed from its natural area of distribution and transported to a region that is naturally limited in that resource it creates difficult problems, and pollution for both environments eventually.
That's all a moot point now with irrigation, distillation, refinement, and transportation having reached the level they have so that our current society is possible and well entrenched.
I love my truck and boat! And all of the fuel they need to run.
It all comes with a price paid by the environment.
It's gonna be a big deal all right, this water will be taken from here and piped to there issue. I hope the people who make these decisions are informed planners and not a political appointment to a BIL type deal.

Its good there is a healthy debate happening because we need some well thought out, forward looking decisions because the choices will have a big impact in the future.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

ox eye and crusader please take no offense, but this was a polite thoughtful conversation. We like it that way here. If y'all want to battle it out the Jungle is for that. Again I mean that in the most respectful way I can write it. Please lets try and keep it peaceful.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

Another thing I think makes it tough is the information out there that our bays are starving for fresh water inflows as it is. I think Richg and someone else touched on this before.

If we take up more scarce bottom land to build more reservoirs to hold more water what does that add to the strain already on our bay systems?


----------



## luizalits (Nov 30, 2015)

surf in English Garden , Munich

http://goo.gl/wCcz8z


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

SeaOx 230C said:


> ox eye and crusader please take no offense, but this was a polite thoughtful conversation. We like it that way here. If y'all want to battle it out the Jungle is for that. Again I mean that in the most respectful way I can write it. Please lets try and keep it peaceful.


No offense taken, because you're absolutely right. I erred in not following the advice I offered to Mr. Schumacher. My bad!


----------



## Longshot270 (Aug 5, 2011)

shadslinger said:


> Whenever a natural resource is removed from its natural area of distribution and transported to a region that is naturally limited in that resource it creates difficult problems, and pollution for both environments eventually.
> That's all a moot point now with irrigation, distillation, refinement, and transportation having reached the level they have so that our current society is possible and well entrenched.
> I love my truck and boat! And all of the fuel they need to run.
> It all comes with a price paid by the environment.
> ...


Exactly, and take good ideas up to the powers that be like the TWDB, TCEQ, and such with a politically connected sponsor. They are the regulators for the state and could use a different perspective every now and then. There is also a large revolving fund for water projects like these.


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

SeaOx 230C said:


> Another thing I think makes it tough is the information out there that our bays are starving for fresh water inflows as it is. I think Richg and someone else touched on this before.
> 
> If we take up more scarce bottom land to build more reservoirs to hold more water what does that add to the strain already on our bay systems?


Even the natural ebb and flow of fresh water that flows into the bays can be, at times, problematic. Nature, itself, is not always kind to the bays. Too much fresh water into the bays can be just as harmful as not enough.

As I understand it, much of the water the Houston area uses winds up in the bays, anyway. The recent floods where human poop along with floodwater was overflowing from sewer grates indicates that water for flushing toilets, taking baths, cooking, etc., along with excess rainwater, all flow through the same sewage lines. All that water then flows through sewage treatment plants where it is reconstituted (made fresh?) and is released into the bayous and ultimately ends up in the bays.

All water usage, however, doesnâ€™t necessarily end up in the bays. Water used in car washes or watering lawns, flowers and trees evaporates and a lot more flows into the ground â€¦ eventually mixing in with aquifer water tables. But, that happens in nature, too.

So, Iâ€™m not sure if anything under current discussion would have that dramatic effect on the bays, good or bad. In all probability, a statewide water capture system might more consistently supply the bays than nature.


----------



## Longshot270 (Aug 5, 2011)

Ox Eye said:


> So, Iâ€™m not sure if anything under current discussion would have that dramatic effect on the bays, good or bad. In all probability, a statewide water capture system might be more consistently supply the bays than nature.


That part I do not agree with. If that were true, the debates over environmental flow requirements would not have existed and they wouldn't have been threatened again recently. Human use will eventually trump environmental use.


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

I'm listening.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

I hear ya Ox Eye sometimes Mother Nature can be a you know what. However I think Mother Nature can do a better job than a human. I have talked with many an old timer that has passed on now and all said with out a doubt the back of Trinity bay and the lower River bottom was a vastly different place before the Livingston dam was closed off and the lake filled. These are people that lived on the lower river and back bay all their lives including some that made their living from the river and surrounding bottom land.

They described a more brackish with grass flats every where, with reds tailing, most of the bottom in the far back was mud, if you wanted a shrimp dinner it was nothing to go down to marsh drain and cast net all you wanted. The marsh ponds would be full of native brackish to freshwater vegetation.

Now the back of Trinity is still flats but the bottom has more hard sand where it once was mud, no grass, few tailing fish, few shrimp etc..... The marsh ponds have very little vegetation in them and more salt marsh cane has taken over. 

I don't think it is possible for Man to do a better job than Nature. But I do agree that people come first of course. And I also believe that people should do what they can do conservation wise before we go to trying to manipulate nature any more than we already have.

I do agree that some solution must be found but it is far from simple. I do not think building more reservoirs is the answer. I think all that will do is temporarily help, while destroying more scarce river bottom land, and further damage the bays.

Say we build all these new systems to capture and move more water around. What happens when the population keeps expanding and more people want green lawns spotless cars, swimming pools, bigger better water parks etc.....

I think we need to learn to live within our means so to speak.


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

SeaOx 230C said:


> I have talked with many an old timer that has passed on now and all said with out a doubt the back of Trinity bay and the lower River bottom was a vastly different place before the Livingston dam was closed off and the lake filled.


I have no doubt that the Trinity Bay area was greatly different before Lake Livingston ... and before the industrial development to its north along I10 and before the residential and waterfront properties surrounding the area were created. But, I don't think anybody can reasonably single out one event as the culprit. Topical land features constantly change from natural causes, too. If I can believe historical accounts, the whole area, at some time in the past, was several miles into the Gulf of Mexico.

Point is, you may be right ... or maybe not, and the estuary was already in decline from something totally different. The answer is not conclusive.


----------



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

We just finished a new 60-inch pipeline coming out of Lake Conroe and feeding The Woodlands. In my meetings with the SJRA engineers I asked what would happen when this pipeline drains Lake Conroe during drought years. They said plans are already being developed to pipe Lake Livingston down to Lake Conroe. I would imagine other municipalities are trying to figure out pipeline systems to interconnect certain lakes around highly populated areas as well.


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

Bankin' On It said:


> We just finished a new 60-inch pipeline coming out of Lake Conroe and feeding The Woodlands. In my meetings with the SJRA engineers I asked what would happen when this pipeline drains Lake Conroe during drought years. They said plans are already being developed to pipe Lake Livingston down to Lake Conroe. I would imagine other municipalities are trying to figure out pipeline systems to interconnect certain lakes around highly populated areas as well.


As much as many of us depend on these reservoirs for recreational purposes, supplying public water consumption is their intended purpose. Over time, there is going to be a need for more of them. That's a given. They, too, will serve that dual purpose.

I believe reasonable people can make this happen without undue harm to the Gulf. But, we reasonable people will need to be actively involved.


----------

