There seems to be some confusion about which governmental agency does what.

CAD doesn't benefit from the lake or any other desirable feature. They don't collect any money from the property owners. They have no taxing authority. All they do is set the appraisal for the other taxing entities to use. The school district, county, etc, are another story. They are the ones who will suffer.

It can be difficult to discuss the issues here when people blurt out opinions with incorrect facts.

lespaul said:

---

"Need the dam for multiple reasons."

do you think the Lake Wood dam needs to be rebuilt as well? If so, which takes higher priority?

---

Wood Lake was impounded for the purpose of a hydro electric station, assuming it supplied power to rural areas and parts (or all) of Gonzales at some point. There appears to be a very small water treatment facility on the south side of the dam, but outside of that - it has very little purpose, especially when compared to Dunlap.

Wood may have been out of commission longer, but in terms of priority - it would appear that Dunlap is a significantly higher priority simply because of its relationship to water supply to a fairly significant number of people versus anything that Wood may have.

And I think it was universally understood that the gist of the conversation revolved around property taxes and how they will be affected. Not every discussion needs to have hairs split to the nth degree over technicalities, especially when the overall pertinent matter is pretty clear.

Ragoo-Do the Henrys (Schlitterbahn guys) still have a house in SouthBank? They could probably throw some money at this.

Haven't decided if I'm going to our place on McQueeney this weekend or not. Ive seen pictures of whole trees floating around so there is no telling what else in the water from the Dunlap spill.

Cstrickland05 said:

---

Ragoo-Do the Henrys (Schlitterbahn guys) still have a house in SouthBank? They could probably throw some money at this.

Haven't decided if I'm going to our place on McQueeney this weekend or not. Ive seen pictures of whole trees floating around so there is no telling what else in the water from the Dunlap spill.

---

the sister I believe still lives there but their house isn't on the river. They have legal issues up at the KC Park. The Smithers are still back in the corner IIRC and they could no doubt.

I have no doubt the collective of the homeowners could at the drop of a hat pay to rebuild the dam. Probably would to get it done in 24 months or less.

Just looking around last summer there is a lot of "new" money coming in tearing down and rebuilding along the waterfront.

We are headed over. Probably cruise canyon lake on Saturday. Probably end up downtown at the Phoenix or Pour Haus Saturday evening.

Graham no longer lives in the double wide on the lake behind the old WestPointe Pepperill Mill. He moved to Alamo Heights several years ago. Still owns the land though.

schmellba99 said:

---

And I think it was universally understood that the gist of the conversation revolved around property taxes and how they will be affected. Not every discussion needs to have hairs split to the nth degree over technicalities, especially when the overall pertinent matter is pretty clear.

---

Right, but don't blame the welfare agents for starting a war in Iraq. Government sucks, but at least point fingers at the right lackeys

rootube said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

GBRA owns the dam and are responsible for repairing it. It needs to be repaired because they have contracts with other utilities to sell the water.

Just my skewed opinion, it has been run by political appointees since its inception. Generally speaking the service area has been rural, and the Board has reflected that. The rural interests have largely managed the river like an irrigation district where most everything is maintained on the cheap, and nothing is fixed unless it breaks .

Contrast that with LCRA. Similar political structure, but their leadership is more urban and forward thinking with long term vision and maintenance structure.

Nothing against rural folks and farmers. I come from that stock, but farmers tend to be a lot more tight with the money.

A review of the two Boards is illustrative. Generally speaking the GBRA board is farmers and ranchers. The LCRA board is mostly business people and lawyers with a handful of farmers from the downriver counties.

---

I feel like you are giving the LCRA too much credit. They probably have deeper pockets, but they are also stewards of aging infrastructure. If anything good comes out of this it will be the reassessment of what the costs and benefits of our state dam systems are. The bottom line is Austin and San Antonio are economically dependant on the LCRA and GBRA to make sure they have access to water. The great fishing and sweet lake houses are just a nice side benefit.

---

Austin, yes. San Antonio, not really. The water San Antonio get from CRWA and GBRA is pretty small compared to their other sources. When Vista Ridge comes on line, that will be even smaller. If SAWS lost the Guadalupe supply tomorrow, they could handle it. If Town Lake went dry, Austin would be in a world of hurt.

That said, LCRAs system is multiple orders of magnitude more complex than GBRA with the Highland Lakes and the power generation division. I would say LCRAs dams for being similar age and much larger are in far better condition than GBRA's dams.

Burdizzo said:

---

rootube said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

GBRA owns the dam and are responsible for repairing it. It needs to be repaired because they have contracts with other utilities to sell the water.

Just my skewed opinion, it has been run by political appointees since its inception. Generally speaking the service area has been rural, and the Board has reflected that. The rural interests have largely managed the river like an irrigation district where most everything is maintained on the cheap, and nothing is fixed unless it breaks .

Contrast that with LCRA. Similar political structure, but their leadership is more urban and forward thinking with long term vision and maintenance structure.

Nothing against rural folks and farmers. I come from that stock, but farmers tend to be a lot more tight with the money.

A review of the two Boards is illustrative. Generally speaking the GBRA board is farmers and ranchers. The LCRA board is mostly business people and lawyers with a handful of farmers from the downriver counties.

---

I feel like you are giving the LCRA too much credit. They probably have deeper pockets, but they are also stewards of aging infrastructure. If anything good comes out of this it will be the reassessment of what the costs and benefits of our state dam systems are. The bottom line is Austin and San Antonio are economically dependant on the LCRA and GBRA to make sure they have access to water. The great fishing and sweet lake houses are just a nice side benefit.

---

Austin, yes. San Antonio, not really. The water San Antonio get from CRWA and GBRA is pretty small compared to their other sources. When Vista Ridge comes on line, that will be even smaller. If SAWS lost the Guadalupe supply tomorrow, they could handle it. If Town Lake went dry, Austin would be in a world of hurt.

That said, LCRAs system is multiple orders of magnitude more complex than GBRA with the Highland Lakes and the power generation division. I would say LCRAs dams for being similar age and much larger are in far better condition than GBRA's dams.

---

Northwest San Antonio is already drinking from Canyon.
http://www.saws.org/Your_Water/WaterResources/Projects/western_canyon.cfm

Cities like San Antonio and Austin will consume more water over time not less and it's got to come from somewhere.

I agree that the LCRA dam system is more complex. Just because it's more complex and there is much more political muscle behind it (literally) doesn't necessarily mean it's being managed effectively. I am not saying it's not but something like what is going on at GBRA makes you wonder.

rootube said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

rootube said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

GBRA owns the dam and are responsible for repairing it. It needs to be repaired because they have contracts with other utilities to sell the water.

Just my skewed opinion, it has been run by political appointees since its inception. Generally speaking the service area has been rural, and the Board has reflected that. The rural interests have largely managed the river like an irrigation district where most everything is maintained on the cheap, and nothing is fixed unless it breaks .

Contrast that with LCRA. Similar political structure, but their leadership is more urban and forward thinking with long term vision and maintenance structure.

Nothing against rural folks and farmers. I come from that stock, but farmers tend to be a lot more tight with the money.

A review of the two Boards is illustrative. Generally speaking the GBRA board is farmers and ranchers. The LCRA board is mostly business people and lawyers with a handful of farmers from the downriver counties.

---

I feel like you are giving the LCRA too much credit. They probably have deeper pockets, but they are also stewards of aging infrastructure. If anything good comes out of this it will be the reassessment of what the costs and benefits of our state dam systems are. The bottom line is Austin and San Antonio are economically dependant on the LCRA and GBRA to make sure they have access to water. The great fishing and sweet lake houses are just a nice side benefit.

---

Austin, yes. San Antonio, not really. The water San Antonio get from CRWA and GBRA is pretty small compared to their other sources. When Vista Ridge comes on line, that will be even smaller. If SAWS lost the Guadalupe supply tomorrow, they could handle it. If Town Lake went dry, Austin would be in a world of hurt.

That said, LCRAs system is multiple orders of magnitude more complex than GBRA with the Highland Lakes and the power generation division. I would say LCRAs dams for being similar age and much larger are in far better condition than GBRA's dams.

---

Northwest San Antonio is already drinking from Canyon.
http://www.saws.org/Your_Water/WaterResources/Projects/western_canyon.cfm

Cities like San Antonio and Austin will consume more water over time not less and it's got to come from somewhere.

I agree that the LCRA dam system is more complex. Just because it's more complex and there is much more political muscle behind it (literally) doesn't necessarily mean it's being managed effectively. I am not saying it's not but something like what is going on at GBRA makes you wonder.

---

I did not say San Antonio wasn't using water from the Guadalupe. I said what they use was a pretty small fraction of the overall water supply. Between GBRA and CRWA that fraction is about 4% (12,000 acre-feet). In 2020 that fraction will drop significantly because SAWS has a take or pay agreement with Vista Ridge for 91,000 acre-feet annually.



SAWS probably wouldn't be taking even that much CRWA water if they hadn't taken over BexarMet, and the primary driver for that was because it was an easy way for SAWS to aquire more Edwards water. Again, if that CRWA water went away today, SAWS would be just fine for a long time.

Burdizzo said:

---

rootube said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

rootube said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

GBRA owns the dam and are responsible for repairing it. It needs to be repaired because they have contracts with other utilities to sell the water.

Just my skewed opinion, it has been run by political appointees since its inception. Generally speaking the service area has been rural, and the Board has reflected that. The rural interests have largely managed the river like an irrigation district where most everything is maintained on the cheap, and nothing is fixed unless it breaks .

Contrast that with LCRA. Similar political structure, but their leadership is more urban and forward thinking with long term vision and maintenance structure.

Nothing against rural folks and farmers. I come from that stock, but farmers tend to be a lot more tight with the money.

A review of the two Boards is illustrative. Generally speaking the GBRA board is farmers and ranchers. The LCRA board is mostly business people and lawyers with a handful of farmers from the downriver counties.

---

I feel like you are giving the LCRA too much credit. They probably have deeper pockets, but they are also stewards of aging infrastructure. If anything good comes out of this it will be the reassessment of what the costs and benefits of our state dam systems are. The bottom line is Austin and San Antonio are economically dependant on the LCRA and GBRA to make sure they have access to water. The great fishing and sweet lake houses are just a nice side benefit.

---

Austin, yes. San Antonio, not really. The water San Antonio get from CRWA and GBRA is pretty small compared to their other sources. When Vista Ridge comes on line, that will be even smaller. If SAWS lost the Guadalupe supply tomorrow, they could handle it. If Town Lake went dry, Austin would be in a world of hurt.

That said, LCRAs system is multiple orders of magnitude more complex than GBRA with the Highland Lakes and the power generation division. I would say LCRAs dams for being similar age and much larger are in far better condition than GBRA's dams.

---

Northwest San Antonio is already drinking from Canyon.
http://www.saws.org/Your_Water/WaterResources/Projects/western_canyon.cfm

Cities like San Antonio and Austin will consume more water over time not less and it's got to come from somewhere.

I agree that the LCRA dam system is more complex. Just because it's more complex and there is much more political muscle behind it (literally) doesn't necessarily mean it's being managed effectively. I am not saying it's not but something like what is going on at GBRA makes you wonder.

---

I did not say San Antonio wasn't using water from the Guadalupe. I said what they use was a pretty small fraction of the overall water supply. Between GBRA and CRWA that fraction is about 4% (12,000 acre-feet). In 2020 that fraction will drop significantly because SAWS has a take or pay agreement with Vista Ridge for 91,000 acre-feet annually.



SAWS probably wouldn't be taking even that much CRWA water if they hadn't taken over BexarMet, and the primary driver for that was because it was an easy way for SAWS to aquire more Edwards water. Again, if that CRWA water went away today, SAWS would be just fine for a long time.

---

Sure but it seems like San Antonio has been looking to diversify its water supply my entire life, I remember when they were considering bringing in water from southwest Texas which sounded absurd at the time. Plus we are talking about the part of SA where all the growth is so I don't see a scenario where in the future they are going to need less water. I don't dispute anything you are saying here by the way with the exception of the desire for large metros to secure water rights.

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/environment/article/Town-s-mayor-promises-fight-on-water-line-to-S-A-4992258.php

When you legitimately consider a plan to move water from Val Verde to Bexar county that is how you know they are serious about securing water rights. San Antonio (Rightfully So) wants that green piece of pie in your graphic to get smaller and they can't do that without adding new sources or expanding existing ones.

Quote:

---

The proposal, made by the V.V. Water Co., would send enough water for more than 150,000 households per year from drought-weary Val Verde County to SAWS by 2018. It's one of three long-term water deals the city-owned utility will choose from in its push to reduce San Antonio's reliance on the Edwards Aquifer.

---

This thread has run off on a tangent from Lake Dunlap and GBRA to water supply for the city of San Antonio. I will just close by saying you may want to read up on the history of San Antonio water and the politics of it and the also Canyon Lake and the Guadalupe River to learn why it will likely never be a significant source of water for San Antonio despite being in their backyard and why San Antonio ratepayers will soon be paying through the nose to pump 90,000 AFY from 150 miles away and uphill for 600 feet.

No surprise here, but I saw an article on www.kens5.com stating they are trying to get funding from the state for the repairs...

"Rep. John Kuempel added an amendment to Senate Bill 8 that would enable legislation for funds to be used to fix the dam.

This just isn't a Comal County or Guadalupe County thing, this is a Texas thing," he said. "This lake is a benefit to a lot of people."

lespaul said:

---

No surprise here, but I saw an article on www.kens5.com stating they are trying to get funding from the state for the repairs...

"Rep. John Kuempel added an amendment to Senate Bill 8 that would enable legislation for funds to be used to fix the dam.

This just isn't a Comal County or Guadalupe County thing, this is a Texas thing," he said. "This lake is a benefit to a lot of people."

---

They ought to go get funding from TWDB like almost every other water purveyor in the state. It should not require special legislative action, and I have little doubt TWDB would make them a priority.

Burdizzo said:

---

This thread has run off on a tangent from Lake Dunlap and GBRA to water supply for the city of San Antonio. I will just close by saying you may want to read up on the history of San Antonio water and the politics of it and the also Canyon Lake and the Guadalupe River to learn why it will likely never be a significant source of water for San Antonio despite being in their backyard and why San Antonio ratepayers will soon be paying through the nose to pump 90,000 AFY from 150 miles away and uphill for 600 feet.

---

Read up? That would slow down my texags postings! I freely admit that you very likely know much more about this topic than me. My original argument is that in the long run the value of the dam systems is the water itself and that value will only increase over time. Everyone is talking about recreation, lake houses, hydroelectric and flood control but the water behind these aging dams is what has the real value. A case in point is the big dam built in '69 near Del Rio that San Antonio wants to stick it's straw into. Maybe we can figure out a way to put the straw on the Mexico side of the lake :-)

The only other thing I would caution against is saying "likely never" because if you had told someone San Antonio would get water from the border 20 years ago they would have said you were crazy.

The reason I keep saying that is because San Antonio had the chance to get Canyon water way back when the dam was being planned, and they turned it down because they always thought Edwards water would be cheap and plentiful. The battle over the Edwards in the 1980s and 1990s taught them otherwise, but by that point most of the water out of Canyon Lake was allocated elsewhere . SAWS is run by some politically sharp people (borderline criminal, IMO, but that is another issue), but they have also managed to piss off most of the region with their water grabs in recent decades. They once had a plan to buy water from LCRA until LCRA figured out they didn't have the water to sell. They turned down the Vista Verde project because it was too political, and the path of least resistance for future water became Burleson County. If Canyon water was easy, SAWS would already have it.

Ragoo said:

---

Cstrickland05 said:

---

Ragoo-Do the Henrys (Schlitterbahn guys) still have a house in SouthBank? They could probably throw some money at this.

Haven't decided if I'm going to our place on McQueeney this weekend or not. Ive seen pictures of whole trees floating around so there is no telling what else in the water from the Dunlap spill.

---

the sister I believe still lives there but their house isn't on the river. They have legal issues up at the KC Park. The Smithers are still back in the corner IIRC and they could no doubt.

I have no doubt the collective of the homeowners could at the drop of a hat pay to rebuild the dam. Probably would to get it done in 24 months or less.

Just looking around last summer there is a lot of "new" money coming in tearing down and rebuilding along the waterfront.

We are headed over. Probably cruise canyon lake on Saturday. Probably end up downtown at the Phoenix or Pour Haus Saturday evening.

---

Good luck on Canyon. Going there on a weekend like this would be my personal hell. Way too many people. McQ is bad enough and there isn't even a public ramp

https://www.ksat.com/news/after-other-spillgate-failures-gbra-limits-access-near-mcqueeney-red-mill-dams?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=snd&utm_content=ksat12&fbclid=IwAR1bardxe4mBZYkYoLv0t7LwYMBA1tbSemzYTPK31DEZupxFhSn1AvFJITg

Quote:

---

After other spillgate failures, GBRA limits access near McQueeney, Red Mill dams

Watercraft can't anchor, swimming not allowed in restricted zones

---

Yeah canyon is not my favorite. Probably just hang in the "cove" by cranes mill.

Might try Placid on Sunday although I bet it is packed now.

On the big holiday weekends, we rarely even get in the boat except for a cruise around lunch and dinner times because it usually thins out long enough for a lap around the island and a run over by the Lodge. Too many people that don't know what they are doing, on top of McQ just isn't that big.

100%

If Dunlap weren't **** now I'd launch early to ski on glass, dock at southbank and head in for lunch, then back out 3ish for an afternoon cruise. Park it by the damn for a swim if too crowded.