Problems on Arbuckle Reservoir, mitigation to run $65m (Moody: contractor, cost)

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

The non-recreational doesn't have anything to do with the quality of water used for drinking; it is more likely related to liability. That will be a very shallow lake that changes level relatively frequently and might have underwater hazards that appear. It will also be very warm, potentially increasing the odds of water-borne diseases (i.e Naegleria fowleri). Finally, there won't be a budget for managing facilities (parks, ramps, patrol), so it is probably better to close the lake.

Oh, and you won't have competing interests later on in time - the recreational users vs. the agricultural users.

Lake Travis is actually one of the cleaner lakes (on a chemical basis) in the U.S. that is recreational, believe it or not.

LA is actually putting black balls on top of its reservoirs, which have always been banned from public use. I wonder if this facility would do it as well? It would cool the water down and prevent bromide accumulation. I think CA in general is much more worried about public safety. Our reservoirs get much hotter than they ever do in LA and we don't have to go to such measures:

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-...e-la-reservoir

[Trainwreck20]

I don't think the bromide thing is a problem here. Even if it was, that water is not intended for public consumption and will not undergo ozone treatment (which creates the bromide in the LA example). And between saving water (in a milder but drier environment) and reduced chlorinating (which won't be used in this reservoir), they say that they will recoup 'half' the cost of the balls. So it doesn't seem like it would make sense here.

And from a technical standpoint, the LA reservoir is 96 acres, the Arbuckle will be >1,000 acres, so you would need 10 times as many balls. And I am not sure how the Arbuckle is designed to out-flow, but if it is an overflow type system, that would not work at all with balls on the surface.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I don't think the bromide thing is a problem here. Even if it was, that water is not intended for public consumption and will not undergo ozone treatment (which creates the bromide in the LA example). And between saving water (in a milder but drier environment) and reduced chlorinating (which won't be used in this reservoir), they say that they will recoup 'half' the cost of the balls. So it doesn't seem like it would make sense here.

And from a technical standpoint, the LA reservoir is 96 acres, the Arbuckle will be >1,000 acres, so you would need 10 times as many balls. And I am not sure how the Arbuckle is designed to out-flow, but if it is an overflow type system, that would not work at all with balls on the surface.

The water "outtake" is at the bottom of the reservoir and will feed directly into the rice canals.

I presume that rice farms can use untreated water?

So if this was a drinking reservoir perhaps they would have to have more stringent standards than one just used for agriculture?

[Danbo1957]

Check what’s going on along the Guadalupe-Blanco River shed. After 90 years, four lakes are now restricted from recreational use due to possible failures of their dams.

There has always been talk over the years of boating restrictions on Lake Austin similar to that of Town Lake, obviously that hasn’t happened. Say what you want, but those rice farmers have some serious pull concerning the Colorado River water rights. And we all lived through that drought, with Travis down to 626 feet in 2011. I’m perfectly happy that the Wharton reservoir is being built.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by cBach

The water "outtake" is at the bottom of the reservoir and will feed directly into the rice canals.

I presume that rice farms can use untreated water?

So if this was a drinking reservoir perhaps they would have to have more stringent standards than one just used for agriculture?

The drinking water standards are met via treatment, not at the source. Which is why Lake Travis is full of motor boats and such, but boat pollution is probably dwarfed by run-off from the surrounding development.

Rice farmers use HUGE amounts of water in a relatively short period of time (really two periods of time), which makes them fairly unique. Statistically, the Colorado River has plenty of water (most years) for everyone - farmers, industry, cities, etc. - but the highland lakes can't hold it all at one time and have to 'waste' it during times of excess rain. This reservoir does two things - it can fill independently (as it is in a wetter location, statistically) and it can 'catch' the excess water from the highland lakes during peak inflow events.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

The drinking water standards are met via treatment, not at the source. Which is why Lake Travis is full of motor boats and such, but boat pollution is probably dwarfed by run-off from the surrounding development.

Rice farmers use HUGE amounts of water in a relatively short period of time (really two periods of time), which makes them fairly unique. Statistically, the Colorado River has plenty of water (most years) for everyone - farmers, industry, cities, etc. - but the highland lakes can't hold it all at one time and have to 'waste' it during times of excess rain. This reservoir does two things - it can fill independently (as it is in a wetter location, statistically) and it can 'catch' the excess water from the highland lakes during peak inflow events.

Yes all water is treated but in the LA case, by having the balls they reduced the amount of chlorine that they had to use. I think the water in Arbuckle will pass untreated to the rice farms, I don't think rice farms need pure water. I agree with everything else you said.

[afterdark80]

LCRA should be investigated for corruption in both the development of the water management plan which allows excessive water releases to the useless rice farming industry in times of low precipitation, and the mismanagement of the construction of the Arbuckle Reservoir. Award of the contract, delays, and now a required remediation of the retention structures is all very suspect. Is the same company responsible for the original construction now being awarded the remediation works?

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by afterdark80

LCRA should be investigated for corruption in both the development of the water management plan which allows excessive water releases to the useless rice farming industry in times of low precipitation

Umm...the water management plan that used to be in place had been there for decades and decades, long before there was so much drinking water demand. The revised management plan takes into consideration actual drought conditions (as the old plan had) but also forecast drought conditions.

And not sure how a $140 million in rice is useless (not to mention the support industry that adds value). The rice crop is (far) more valuable than the watermelon, pecan, grapefruit, oranges, or peaches. And seeing as how the water has yet to ever run out, it doesn't make much sense to just preemptively cut off the rice farmers so we can let the water evaporate instead.

Originally Posted by afterdark80

and the mismanagement of the construction of the Arbuckle Reservoir. Award of the contract, delays, and now a required remediation of the retention structures is all very suspect. Is the same company responsible for the original construction now being awarded the remediation works?

Do you have any details, or just blathering about it all being 'very suspect'? Do you google the repairs to get an idea of what happened, what is being fixed, and/or who is fixing it?

[cBach]

Originally Posted by afterdark80

LCRA should be investigated for corruption in both the development of the water management plan which allows excessive water releases to the useless rice farming industry in times of low precipitation, and the mismanagement of the construction of the Arbuckle Reservoir. Award of the contract, delays, and now a required remediation of the retention structures is all very suspect. Is the same company responsible for the original construction now being awarded the remediation works?

From what I've read the issues are mainly due to the clay soil around the reservoir. They tried to account for it but the leaking occurred nonetheless. Other than making the bottom of the reservoir concrete I'm not sure what else they could've done. The mitigation plan seems fine to me. Actually I don't think the leaks are of concern, in New Orleans they always detect leaks in the MS River levees, called "boils". Soil structure is so complicated I'm not sure it can be avoided.

There don't appear to be any issues around corruption nor do I think the company involved in construction deliberately ruined the structure. I don't know why everyone always has a conspiracy theory on everything.

[afterdark80]

The archaic canal design and methods used by rice farmers has also been in place for decades and decades, and they continue to waste absurd amounts of water. Water conservation is required and pushed to consumers, yet the useless rice industry is allowed to waste water unchecked through poorly maintained canals. If rice farmers are so concerned with supply, they should quit wasting most of the water released to them.

Assuming your number is right, an annual crop of $140M produced from the insane amount of water that is required to produce it makes no practical sense, and is indeed an endeavor of fools.

Yes. Phillips & Jordan--self proclaimed experts in reservoir construction--were awarded a contract and immediately the problems began. Delays, cost overruns, excuses. I've been following this for years. They've deliberately lobbied to keep information on these issues suppressed from public record.