I don't know for sure about the LCRA, but for the sake of my answer, I am assuming they are set up like the BRA, which controls the rights of Lake Belton and Stillhouse.

The short answer as to why they don't retain water above conservation pool is because it isn't their call. The management of the lakes is done by two different agencies, the Corps of Engineers and the BRA, and while they cooperate well, they have different missions. The Corps of Engineers built the dams, and manage the dams with the primary mission of flood control. Recreation and drinking water are very nice byproducts of their mission, but that isn't their primary mission. The Corps wants to get the lake(s) out of flood pool as quickly as is safely possible.

Once out of flood pool, and anywhere between dead pool and top of conservation pool, the Corps will open and close the gates of the dams at the direction of the River Authorities. The River Authorities have the mission to deliver water as quickly and safely as possible to the holders of the water rights they control. So once lake levels are below flood pool, it is up to them how water moves through the system.

Quick definitions:

Dead pool refers to water in a reservoir that cannot be drained by gravity through a dam's outlet works. Water that is in the dead pool is not considered part of conservation pool.

Conservation pool - water between dead pool and flood pool. Water owned and managed by River Authorities.

Flood pool - water above conservation pool. Corps attempts to manage this water out of the lake as safely as possible to preserve capacity for the lake to absorb another flood event.

I don't know about BRA, but LCRA also had some sort of jurisdiction back then over construction around Lake Travis., especially anything to do with water contamination. I know one of their employees wanted to know septic tanks and illegal water taps.

Thanks for that explanation. When i say LCRA reevaluate operations i meant any and all authorities having jurisdictions over the water and operations. Mine is a purely technical question and assumes that if the technical issues can be solved, i.e., confident weather predictions, dam integrity, etc. then whatever administrative and legal measures necessary to make the change could also follow.

Another example from 2007 that i noticed was the opening of floodgates until 681 was restored. Technically speaking that was a lot of lost electricity. Seems if the weather predictions are confident enough, why not allow the flood pool to be drawn down more slowly via hydro electric generation than flood gates? Surely weather forecasting has improved dramatically since the dans were built. Consider models that predict where hurricanes go for example.

quote:

---

Dead pool - minimum lake level necessary to preserve integrity of the dam.

---

That's an interesting concept i hadn't thought about. You mean if the lake went dry it could compromise the integrity of the dam? Cracking of earthen berms opening up water pathways and such?

I'm also under the impression that the lake level maximum also has an impact on the longevity of the dams. Dams were created to hold by X amount of water. While an additional .5 - 2 feet doesn't seem like much, the longer additional water is being held back by the dam, the more impact to the longevity of the dam.

Sorry, that is wrong on the definition of dead pool.

Dead pool refers to water in a reservoir that cannot be drained by gravity through a dam's outlet works. Water that is in the dead pool is not considered part of conservation pool.

quote:

---

Sorry, that is wrong on the definition of dead pool.

Dead pool refers to water in a reservoir that cannot be drained by gravity through a dam's outlet works. Water that is in the dead pool is not considered part of conservation pool.

---

or this...