Problems on Arbuckle Reservoir, mitigation to run $65m (Austin, Wharton: neighborhoods, fence)

[cBach]

The new reservoir in Wharton County was supposed to be up and running this year but it won't be until 2022. Back in the spring of 2019 they started filling the reservoir up but noticed seepage. They are going to have to build an underground wall to prevent such seepage.

https://www.lcra.org/about/newsroom/...Reservoir.aspx

This reservoir will be a "California style" reservoir. No boating, swimming, or recreational use will be permitted and there will be a fence around it. Most of the water will be going to the rice farmers downstream who need copious amounts of water to flood their fields.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by cBach

The new reservoir in Wharton County was supposed to be up and running this year but it won't be until 2022. Back in the spring of 2019 they started filling the reservoir up but noticed seepage. They are going to have to build an underground wall to prevent such seepage.

https://www.lcra.org/about/newsroom/...Reservoir.aspx

This reservoir will be a "California style" reservoir. No boating, swimming, or recreational use will be permitted and there will be a fence around it. Most of the water will be going to the rice farmers downstream who need copious amounts of water to flood their fields.

Edit: Just noticed Wharton County is way downstream of us, is that reservoir really made to help Austin? It seems like they would have plenty of rain given how close to the Gulf they are?

[Trainwreck20]

No, that is for the rice farmers on the coast. Currently, they get their growing season water from Lake Travis.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

No, that is for the rice farmers on the coast. Currently, they get their growing season water from Lake Travis.

I see.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Edit: Just noticed Wharton County is way downstream of us, is that reservoir really made to help Austin? It seems like they would have plenty of rain given how close to the Gulf they are?

yes it helps austin. The last big drawdown was due to us sending water to the rice farmers from lake travis as we headed into a big drought.

Lots of water passes through us during the rainy season and is wasted just going to the gulf. Having a reservoir downstream is just like adding capacity to lake travis.

[Trainwreck20]

A few years ago, I think I remembering them saying it was about 20' worth of water during a full release year.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Edit: Just noticed Wharton County is way downstream of us, is that reservoir really made to help Austin? It seems like they would have plenty of rain given how close to the Gulf they are?

The way the water agreements were written up, the bulk of the Highland Lakes system was originally reserved for agricultural purposes. This was historical, in the 1940's-1960's when the dams were built, Austin was a small town and agricultural demand outweighed urban demand.

The rice farmers downstream of us have always had a precarious situation. Rice farming requires intense amounts of water. In a place like South Louisiana, it is a natural thing to do. Just go through the rice farming parishes of Louisiana, they can get 60-70" of rain a year and the ground is naturally wet with a high water table.

The rice farmers along the Colorado River get maybe 50" of rain in a good year and that is enough to be able to rice farm, but some years they only get 20" or less and that is not nearly enough. So the agreements with LCRA were such that during dry years they could "drain down" the lakes to flood their fields.

This came to a head when, even though Lake Travis was at its lowest level in 2011, they drained the lake down even further so the rice farmers would have enough water for the season.

Shortly after that, they amended the agreements and now the rice farmers don't get enough water in drought times, when they need it. They complained and said their industry was at risk. In the meantime, years of drought meant that the Highland Lakes weren't a reliable source of water anymore. So they sought out to build a reservoir in an area that gets higher rainfall rates and can satiate the rice farmers demands.

Unlike Lake Travis or other reservoirs on the Highland Lake system which were built before regulations were common, this new reservoir will not have any recreational use. If you are from California or have been there, then it's not a new story, for example there are many reservoirs in neighborhoods in LA that have fences around them and no recreational uses are permitted because they don't want diesel fuel or dog feces in the reservoir. You won't believe how many of my friends can't believe that the drinking source for Austin, Lake Travis, has so many boats spilling their diesel fuel and oil, people "relieving themselves" in our water supply, etc... instead of it being protected. My response is always "well they just add some more chlorine and that'll take care of it". But I guess the newer reservoirs are designed to be protected better.

[ScoPro]

cBach stated it in a nutshell.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by cBach

The way the water agreements were written up, the bulk of the Highland Lakes system was originally reserved for agricultural purposes. This was historical, in the 1940's-1960's when the dams were built, Austin was a small town and agricultural demand outweighed urban demand.

The rice farmers downstream of us have always had a precarious situation. Rice farming requires intense amounts of water. In a place like South Louisiana, it is a natural thing to do. Just go through the rice farming parishes of Louisiana, they can get 60-70" of rain a year and the ground is naturally wet with a high water table.

The rice farmers along the Colorado River get maybe 50" of rain in a good year and that is enough to be able to rice farm, but some years they only get 20" or less and that is not nearly enough. So the agreements with LCRA were such that during dry years they could "drain down" the lakes to flood their fields.

This came to a head when, even though Lake Travis was at its lowest level in 2011, they drained the lake down even further so the rice farmers would have enough water for the season.

Shortly after that, they amended the agreements and now the rice farmers don't get enough water in drought times, when they need it. They complained and said their industry was at risk. In the meantime, years of drought meant that the Highland Lakes weren't a reliable source of water anymore. So they sought out to build a reservoir in an area that gets higher rainfall rates and can satiate the rice farmers demands.

Unlike Lake Travis or other reservoirs on the Highland Lake system which were built before regulations were common, this new reservoir will not have any recreational use. If you are from California or have been there, then it's not a new story, for example there are many reservoirs in neighborhoods in LA that have fences around them and no recreational uses are permitted because they don't want diesel fuel or dog feces in the reservoir. You won't believe how many of my friends can't believe that the drinking source for Austin, Lake Travis, has so many boats spilling their diesel fuel and oil, people "relieving themselves" in our water supply, etc... instead of it being protected. My response is always "well they just add some more chlorine and that'll take care of it". But I guess the newer reservoirs are designed to be protected better.

Makes sense, I just never heard of that because Lake Lanier and Lake Altoona were major drinking sources in Atlanta but both are very recreational. I've assumed the same for the manmade likes in DFW as well so it just struck me as odd as a non recreational lake.

[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.