I got this in an email from a nearby marina that has been fighting the good fight along with several other Lake Travis (and Buchanan) businesses and the CTWC (www.ourwater-ourfuture.com) regarding LCRA proposed changes to how the water supply in those lakes is used and protected. I know, TL;DR, but for those that know and care, this is a major event. I say that tentatively, as it appears final details and approval are set to be decided in January, but the table appears set towards better preservation of the water in those lakes, and it appears to be somewhat permanent. Rice farmers are going to be upset, as it greatly affects their access to water as compared to what they've been allowed to use in the past, but i -think- that the way things were going, there would be none left before too long, so even they have to be thinking preservation to an extent, I would think. In any event... here is the run down, from the marina's perspective. ========== Because of the efforts (since 2009) of the Central Texas Water Coalition (CTWC) the LCRA Board of Directors has approved historical changes to the LCRA Water Management Plan (WMP). These changes will greatly minimize the draining of our beautiful lake by sending significantly less water downstream each year to agricultural interests (rice farmers). As you know the rice farmers receive approx. 70% (!!!) of the releases from the Highland lakes.. Also as we have mentioned in previous emails the cities, municipalities etc. water taken from Lake Travis, all combined, now and in the future, is miniscule in comparison. Remember that the water needs of the entire City of Austin for a year would only remove 1 ft of water from Lake Travis when full. As y'all know, we hate rumor, speculation and baseless facts and we want to all be properly informed. Here is the latest up to the minute details: There are two steps to the changes: First step: Emergency, immediate but temporary changes for 2012: The LCRA decided that since the proposed permanent changes to the WMP were going to take some time to process, it needed to take immediate action for 2012 under "emergency" guidelines. By 15-0 vote the LCRA Board of Directors voted to completely cut off all releases next year to rice farmers if combined storage of Travis and Buchanan is less than 850,000 acre feet on March 1 2012. (Currently combined storage is approx 767,000 ).. If on March 1, combined storage is between 850,000 and 925,000 acre feet the rice farmers will get just 25% (approx) of the water they received in 2011. The purpose of this emergency measure is to allow Travis and Buchanan time to recover. Second Step: Permanent changes to the WMP moving forward: (summary-you can get details at LCRA website) No longer will rice farmers be "approved" for two rice crops on Jan 1 storage levels alone. There will now be two trigger points- Jan 1 to determine if they will receive water for their first crop (only) and June 1 to determine if they will receive water for their second crop. Regardless of the above, the rice farmers are now "capped" at receiving 240,000 to 270,000 acre feet per year max. This is a major victory for us. This figure represents 40% less (!) water coming out of our lakes for rice farmers. To make you ill, the rice farmers will pull 450,000 acre feet this year alone (a record). Lake Travis only holds 1,100,000 acre feet when full!!! "Open water purchases" are no longer allowed. This was a slippery, slimy, technicality that allowed rice farmers the ability to purchase unlimited amounts of water for the entire year if our lake storage on Jan 1 was at or above a certain level. This is how they were able to receive so much water in 2011 and also in 2009. (By the way, rice farmers pay on average $6 per acre foot for the same water we pay $151 on average per acre foot.) Had the above changes been in place this year, analysis shows that Lake Travis today would be approximately 20+ ft higher (648-650 instead of the current 628). Obviously, we would not have had to move the marina and most likely will never have to move it again. Additionally, and even better news is the LCRA has agreed to include "adaptive measures" into the new plan as well. Simply put, adaptive measures factor incurrent water inflows (from creeks, rivers, streams) and modeling/forecasting so that even with an approved WMP there is some "real time" analysis going on. This would avoid another calamity like this year where the LCRA was observing some of the lowest inflows ever recorded, yet releasing record amounts of water to the rice farmers (duh). The CTWC has been fighting for adaptive measures since 2009 and received considerable resistance from the rice farmers. The CTWC ultimately prevailed and at the recent LCRA Board of Directors meeting the board recommended the LCRA staff meet with CTWC to incorporate adaptive measuring. (The rice farmers are not happy about it). With adaptive measures included in the WMP, our lake levels would be even higher than the 648-650 analysis today. LCRA staff and CTWC will now finalize the details and get the new WMP in proper format so the LCRA Board can formally approve it in January. At that point the WMP is forwarded to the TCEQ for final approval. The TCEQ has been present through most of this process (since 2009) and by all reports is in favor of all aspects of it. Please (please!) help the CTWC by sending them a donation. Anything you can send them will be a huge help as this group is entirely volunteer driven and they are incurring huge expenses now hiring experts (engineers, lawyers, water modelers) for the adaptive measure issue. The website for details is www.ourwater-ourfuture.com =================
This and nixing the water deal with San Antonio (though it will cost them a ~$20M settlement) is wonderful news for the area.
Just asking but were these lakes not created for agricultural and urban consumptive use? Not trying to be a contrarian, and understanding that the urban use is miniscule, but as beautiful as these kinds of lakes are, and as fun as being on them is (or owning a home on them is), I would think that the ag/urban use would completely trump everything else. In a perfect world, we would have these kinds of lakes created all over the place and never really tap them, but I wonder what will happen if these droughts continue. My sense at the end of the day is that if these conditions do continue, and job/economic losses mount, they'll turn the taps back on full flow no matter how many lake houses or boats have been bought.
Not so much Ag use as consumptive use, electrification and flood control. From my understanding, the rice farming industry in the lower Colorado basin is pretty miniscule in the big economic scheme of things. Inordinately miniscule compared to the huge amounts of water they've been historically provided. Would be interesting to see an economic-impact comparison of that industry (and all the related businesses dependent on it) versus the recreational industries around the 2 (Buchanan/Travis) variable-level reservoirs. Personally (selfishly and not at all very important in the grand scheme of things), I'd like to see more water in Buchanan/Travis just so some of the damn people/tourists would get off of the smaller, constant-level lakes (Inks, LBJ and Marble Falls) that I prefer for boating, paddling & fishing.
Ag/urban? It's not just about lake houses or boats. It's about jobs and businesses and lost revenue and property values and taxes and the economy and drinking water. It's about grandfather deals where water is sold to farmers at 10% what residential and other commercial customers pay. These farmers paying that rate are using 70% of the water, which was not just created and managed for agricultural use, but for drinking water for millions of people, among other purposes. The deals and triggers created in the past are not enough to keep the resource regulated properly with the rainfall of the past decade and in the foreseeable future. These deals needed to be changed if the resource is going to be there in the future... for anyone. So, while it is important for rice farmers in Texas to get water, the current regulations and triggers that they are trying to change are probably not the best plan if the methods we're using to divvy it up are tapping the resource out. And while restrictions on people watering their lawns etc. might seem sensible during this drought, when the entire city of Austin would only use 1" of water off a full Lake Travis and the farmers are basically getting subsidized rates and using 70" of the resource, something obviously needs to be addressed, as you watch the resource dry up to nothing.
Exactly. Some of these folks on here want to make sure the frat boys can have plenty of water to boat out to devil's cove and get wasted. Ag uses be damned
Lake Travis was created as a flood-control lake, not for recreational purposes. Central Texas is known for lengthy droughts punctuated by catastrophic floods. Before the creation of the dams along the Colorado (LCRA now controls all of them), Austin (and all locations downstream) were devastated by massive flooding on a regular basis. Imagine, for example, what could happen if Lake Travis were kept at a constant level (for recreation, rich-folks property values, etc) of around 685 FASL? That massive downpour and subsequent flooding in Marble Falls in 2007 (which resulted in Lake Travis being closed to recreation for the first part of the summer -- including the Fourth of July Weekend) could have sent water over the spillway of Mansfield Dam for the first time ever, putting citizens along Lake Austin (in the City of Austin), in danger. Why? For recreation/business/pleasure/riches-of-a-few on Lake Travis? That's so short-sighted it's baffling. I have lived in Austin for over 20 years and was born in the Texas hill country. I own property on a lake far above the Highland Lakes. I have spent countless hours enjoying Lake Travis for the better part of my life. And I, for one, think some parts of this plan are ridiculous.
I don't think they're proposing it is or should be constant level... just better triggers of management and contract. Still, I'd be interested to hear what part you think is ridiculous, besides the rhetoric.
TCEQ is now reviewing the plan set forth (put in place after 18 months of negotiation and discussion among all parties involved) to manage water levels beginning 2013, while being lobbied heavily by those that would now seek to emasculate the terms of the proposed changes in how the water is managed... people/entities that were part of the process to advise the controls they are now arguing against. To make a difference, a petition has been put up by the CTWC (Central Texas Water Coalition) to support their cause. Here is a link to more information, and the change.org petition, if anyone else is inclined to support the CTWC effort of conservation.
