Looks to me like a great opportunity to put in a first class surveyed slalom course or two.

Burdizzo said:

---

Public safety is why it is so expensive.

Plus government.

---

Yeah I can see that. No engineering firm /politician wants to take a risk of designing and building a sensible solution when public safety is involved.

Could a dam / spillway with gates be designed and built for say 5 million tops? What would that look like?

I think we'll see more of these types of failures as these structures age because the cost of replacement / repair is so high and the zero tolerance mentality for public safety is also high.

So I see the public safety argument in a sense, but on the other hand ... what if the 91 year old dam failed during the course of an extreme flood event when the river was already out of its banks. Seems like that would be a bigger public safety issue than designing a functional dam that would get you another 100 years of service.

Seems like a common trend across all industries where we mandate the loaded Super Duty XLT Lariat when the stripped down work truck will get the job done.

Doesn't help when you got a situation like Houston where mf'ers are suing everybody because someone got approval to build massive subdivisions adjacent to and sometimes inside the flood reservoirs.

What about the $12 MM estimate leads someone to believe this is an F250 XLT project? The press release was pretty vague about the scope of the repairs.

I am not an expert on dams, the GBRA, or this dam. But I have over 20 years of experience on public works projects. Given the age of the dam, the allegations of deferred maintenance, the state and federal requirements for dams today, the liability of protecting life and property along the river, and the challenges of working in and around the river, the $12 MM estimate does not surprise me. There is probably a lot more work that is going to have to be done on that dam than just replacing one gate.

My dad used to work in automation. He called on GBRA and LCRA. He said their mindset about maintenance couldn't have been further apart. LCRA being the more forward looking of the two.

Ragoo said:

---

My dad used to work in automation. He called on GBRA and LCRA. He said their mindset about maintenance couldn't have been further apart. LCRA being the more forward looking of the two.

---

Knowing the political history of the state, that does not surprise me at all.

I would imagine that new dams, even though it would just be replacing an old one, would be subject to all kinds of environmental regulations and mandated studies in addition to adhering to all the other guidelines put in place since that dam was built 90+ years ago. I don't see this getting solved any time soon and it's a shame for all the folks who own property in that area.

Since when is Seguin the "heart of the Texas Hill Country"?

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/05/15/video-dam-collapses-in-heart-of-texas-hill-country/


And this is not a dam collapse. It is a gate failure. And journalists wonder why they get called fake news

Couldn't you just go in a drive piling with rip rap behind the dam as a temporary fix? Seems that you are probably going to need to do that to repair or replace the dam anyway.

Are you saying to allow temporary refilling of the lake? You're right that those types of barriers may be needed during construction, but it's the kind of thing that's temporary and isn't designed to work long term.

Plus, they arent ready to spend that kind of money on a patch. The contractor they bring in to build the new one will want their own design, most likely. And no way they take the liability of a patch and it fails which brings on the extra lawsuits.

Or a cofferdam around the middle section. The issue is it would exert more pressure/stresses on the remaining two gates and also there's 1/3 less capacity over the spillway.

They will likely build a temp damn (cofferdam or even inflatable) across the channel - pushing water to diversion towards the east. Do a ton of inspections and data collection. Go through engineering for a long time before starting construction. My best guess is construction would take less time than the engineering.

evestor1 said:

---

They will likely build a temp damn (cofferdam or even inflatable) across the channel - pushing water to diversion towards the east. Do a ton of inspections and data collection. Go through engineering for a long time before starting construction. My best guess is construction would take less time than the engineering.

---

Plus construction in jurisdictional water requires a permit from the USACE. That process usually takes 12 months. I would imagine it is going to be at least 24 months before you see a shovel turned for the permanent repairs.

I doubt you will see a cofferdam or similar around the middle gate to bring the lake level back up. That creates an obstruction in the channel that can't be managed in the event of a flood. My guess is GBRA leaves this thing as is until it is time for repairs. That sucks for the all the recreational users of the lake. It also sucks for the city of Kyle. Some of their drinking water comes from Dunlap.

I've managed a USACE project before where we built a cofferdam cutting off a large industrial waterway for several months - every day of it sucked.

We even had to count the number of fish we transplanted during deal.

Burdizzo said:

---

What about the $12 MM estimate leads someone to believe this is an F250 XLT project? The press release was pretty vague about the scope of the repairs.

I am not an expert on dams, the GBRA, or this dam. But I have over 20 years of experience on public works projects. Given the age of the dam, the allegations of deferred maintenance, the state and federal requirements for dams today, the liability of protecting life and property along the river, and the challenges of working in and around the river, the $12 MM estimate does not surprise me. There is probably a lot more work that is going to have to be done on that dam than just replacing one gate.

---

This dam was 91 years old and by all accounts poorly maintained. It's a miracle it didn't fail sooner. Kudos to the engineers who built it. I wonder if they were thinking we need to make sure this thing lasts nearly 100 years and to plan for a government agency that is unwilling or unable to take care of it. I am going to go on record right now and predict that it will take longer than one year and more than $12M to fix. The good news is that we will all be dead the next time it fails after almost 100 years of neglect and that it will be our great grandchildren who have to worry about paying to fix it again.

Also thank god nobody got hurt and it appears that there was not significant property damage although i'm sure there was some and possibly including some people on this thread.

evestor1 said:

---

They will likely build a temp damn (cofferdam or even inflatable) across the channel - pushing water to diversion towards the east. Do a ton of inspections and data collection. Go through engineering for a long time before starting construction. My best guess is construction would take less time than the engineering.

---

they will probably divert the river to the east down the emergency spillway.

Edit: that is the hydro-electric channel

You left out "built or repaired by the low bidder."

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

The issue with the fix... You folks have remodeled an old house, or restored an old car... You just don't know what you're going to find when you go to tearing off into it. Not to mention though in this case there are probably all sorts of new standards that must be met today that weren't even considered when this dam was built. Heck, the case study for the failures that led to many of the new standards hadn't even been proposed when this dam was built.

---

This.

No engineer is going to take on the liability of a fix, modification or repair with the existing structure - because they cannot guarantee what that structure is comprised of and the liability for a failure based on any assumption is just simply too great. So any repair is going to be broad sweeping in scope to ensure that the design and construction are done with known materials, known and current standards, etc. And all of that costs money.

Plus, it's in a waterway, it's surrounded by property owners that aren't easy to deal with, TCEQ is involved, GBRA is involved, TWDB is involved, ACE is likely involved and who knows how many other .gov agencies are involved. All of those add costs because all of them are a PITA to deal with in one capacity or another.

Burdizzo said:

---

What about the $12 MM estimate leads someone to believe this is an F250 XLT project? The press release was pretty vague about the scope of the repairs.

I am not an expert on dams, the GBRA, or this dam. But I have over 20 years of experience on public works projects. Given the age of the dam, the allegations of deferred maintenance, the state and federal requirements for dams today, the liability of protecting life and property along the river, and the challenges of working in and around the river, the $12 MM estimate does not surprise me. There is probably a lot more work that is going to have to be done on that dam than just replacing one gate.

---

$12mm seems pretty light to me to be perfectly honest.

I seriously doubt the dam will be repaired. It would have to be completely removed and rebuilt.

Ragoo said:

---

evestor1 said:

---

They will likely build a temp damn (cofferdam or even inflatable) across the channel - pushing water to diversion towards the east. Do a ton of inspections and data collection. Go through engineering for a long time before starting construction. My best guess is construction would take less time than the engineering.

---

they will probably divert the river to the east down the emergency spillway.

Edit: that is the hydro-electric channel

---

They will be able to divert some when construction does start, but odds are that spillway can't handle full flows and they have to be cognizant of the capabilities of the hydro electric equipment and structures.

Another issue is that GBRA has a water treatment facility that uses Lake Dunlap as source water, without the dam providing pool, that facility won't be able to operate.

Lots of logistics and fun with this one.

Whoever goes out to scavenge the lake bottom please post pictures!
I'm always fascinated when I see large bodies of water drained or empty. The thought of things that haven't been uncovered in decades resurfacing or being found is pretty cool.

Not only is this dam almost 100 years old, the watershed has become much more urbanized in that time. On top of that the NOAA just recently revised the rainfall frequency models that changed what is considered a 100-year storm event. Then there is the whole economic feasibility question about the need for this dinky hydroelectric plant when natural gas is so cheap.

There will be a lot of analysis about this dam before it is rebuilt.

schmellba99 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

evestor1 said:

---

They will likely build a temp damn (cofferdam or even inflatable) across the channel - pushing water to diversion towards the east. Do a ton of inspections and data collection. Go through engineering for a long time before starting construction. My best guess is construction would take less time than the engineering.

---

they will probably divert the river to the east down the emergency spillway.

Edit: that is the hydro-electric channel

---

They will be able to divert some when construction does start, but odds are that spillway can't handle full flows and they have to be cognizant of the capabilities of the hydro electric equipment and structures.

Another issue is that GBRA has a water treatment facility that uses Lake Dunlap as source water, without the dam providing pool, that facility won't be able to operate.

Lots of logistics and fun with this one.

---

define "full flows"

They will have to lower canyon, for some carrying capacity, in order to reduce and maintain the flow into Dunlap during construction. So as to not overrun the hydro channel.

The economics of it for sure don't work out. The city will have to pony up as a recreational watershed first.

To echo most people, very unlikely it'll be repaired. Lake Lewisville almost failed in 2015 or 2016 (we're talking minutes from failing). Someone was checking the dam during the storm and caught a sand boil. If uncaught.... well, 225k+ people would have been killed and downtown Dallas would have had ~12 feet of water sitting if I am remembering the stats right. All that said, the safest and most practical decision (and only honestly) is to build a new dam.

It's an interesting dilemma for sure.

You got a bunch of people who were taxed on the value of lake front property for 50 years, now they are sitting in front of a dry lakebed.

Agreed on the hydro power being a waste of money with a glut of natural gas and distribution infrastructure in this state. I think any hydro-project on this scale would be done based on feelings and to appease the enviornmental crowd. I cant see how hydro could be profitable.

Good point on the enviornmental bull**** that drives costs up, counting fish and so forth. Theres probably a place for that now, but no one was thinking about all that 70 years ago when they built most of the dams in this state. We've painted ourselves into a corner with over regulation.

It's pretty clear that the local district who's function was to manage this infrastructure failed. Now the cost for replacement will be put on non-stake holding state and federal taxpayers.

One option is to build a ultra modern nuke plant somewhere nearby and use the lake for cooling / or a backup hydropower system. If given the opportunity that would be a real solution to the problem and attract global investment money to make it happen.

But ... even if it were feasible ...

That will never happen. Realistically folks will sit around in front of a dry lakebed until they get some non-local tax money to bail them out through federal grants.

I too would like to walk around that dry lake bed once it drys out. Gotta be all kinds of crazy **** down there.

i will be over that way next weekend. I hope to go look around.

To me, Lake Dunlap isn't a lake. It is (was) simply a wide portion of the river. Look at google maps of the area and see if you can pick out a lake. Anyone else agree?

Interesting topic though. They artificially make the river wide, allowing rich folks to buy houses and put up docks for their boat while paying lots of property taxes. All of this depended upon on a 90 year old dam working. When it pooped the bed, now who pays for it? Just the "lake" people or everyone in town? What happens to property taxes in the meantime?

Crazy idea to throw out, do we really need to fix this thing? Is it needed in any way or just an excuse to make the river wider so that rich folks can boat on it?

I know the river owners would get screwed big time, but it might be cheaper to simply give them some of the property losses as opposed to rebuilding this. Just a guess.

what isn't mentioned is, tough as it sounds, people knew the risk of buying a house totally dependent upon an ancient dam working. Either they shouldn't have purchased or bought insurance to cover this sort of thing happening (or live with the hit now that it has failed). A few years ago, my family really wanted to live on either Dunlap or McQueeny (we looked at just about every house for sale). In the end I said absolutely not, too risky (I was more worried about flooding though, not the lake draining). Glad I stood firm,

My best guess is 3.5 years and 30 million before it is back to the old levels. Just a wild guess but when you get the gov't involved, that's the way things roll.

Got to agree with you there.

Thats a lot of money for a wide portion of a river.

But ... we see school districts building 100 million dollar football stadiums.

Clown world though.

What was the fishery like in that area before this incident?

for that reason if my property value is tied closely to an amenity, I prefer it to be with a HOA

seems to me they should figure out the price to fix, then divide by the number of river owners in dunlap, and vote if they want to pay for it. If they don't want to pay for it, then I am not sure why it should be fixed (unless of course someone can tell me a reason it is needed like flood control, drinking water, something else).

This is a have your cake and eat it too type situation. I think it would be wise for the stake-holders to cede some incentive to private industry to come in and solve the problem. What money making venture is feasible?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

It's an interesting dilemma for sure.

You got a bunch of people who were taxed on the value of lake front property for 50 years, now they are sitting in front of a dry lakebed.

Agreed on the hydro power being a waste of money with a glut of natural gas and distribution infrastructure in this state. I think any hydro-project on this scale would be done based on feelings and to appease the enviornmental crowd. I cant see how hydro could be profitable.

Good point on the enviornmental bull**** that drives costs up, counting fish and so forth. Theres probably a place for that now, but no one was thinking about all that 70 years ago when they built most of the dams in this state. We've painted ourselves into a corner with over regulation.

It's pretty clear that the local district who's function was to manage this infrastructure failed. Now the cost for replacement will be put on non-stake holding state and federal taxpayers.

One option is to build a ultra modern nuke plant somewhere nearby and use the lake for cooling / or a backup hydropower system. If given the opportunity that would be a real solution to the problem and attract global investment money to make it happen.

But ... even if it were feasible ...

That will never happen. Realistically folks will sit around in front of a dry lakebed until they get some non-local tax money to bail them out through federal grants.

I too would like to walk around that dry lake bed once it drys out. Gotta be all kinds of crazy **** down there.

---

You are kidding about the nuke plant right? You are suggesting we combine two things this country stopped building decades ago (Dams and Nuke) into a single glorious project.

Burdizzo said:

---

Since when is Seguin the "heart of the Texas Hill Country"?

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/05/15/video-dam-collapses-in-heart-of-texas-hill-country/


And this is not a dam collapse. It is a gate failure. And journalists wonder why they get called fake news

---

FWIW:
Lake Dunlap is in New Braunfels
Lake Placid is in Seguin
Lake McQueeney is in-between

Never in a million years.

Point is theres got to be some kind of economically viable solution where some money-making industry could profit from having a lake at that particular location.

The real estate speculators had their run. Now what?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. In Texas, every "lake" is just a fat spot in the river that was created by the closure of a dam. Is it significant for electricity? No. Is is needed for drinking water? Not really. Does it add value to Comal and Guadalupe counties? Absolutely.

Lake Dunlap will always be the most significant body of water to me. It is absolutely heart breaking to me that it may never exist again.

I grew up 4ish blocks away.

I understand that it is a niche lake, but it is still a public water way that is gone.