SanAntoneAg said:

---

I would wager that the vast majority of Dunlap recreational users are property owners. Sure, the Marriott may host some overnight guests who come to town to fish, tube, ski, etc. on Dunlap.

Is there another public launch aside from the one under 35? The narrow, riverine lake is 8 miles long. I could be wrong but if there is just the one ramp, I would be surprised if Dunlap is a major destination reservoir that is heavily used by non property owners.

I could be wrong.

---

No doubt about it. So, the argument that this is some major loss of public outdoors access is quite weak.

Furlock Bones said:

---

SanAntoneAg said:

---

I would wager that the vast majority of Dunlap recreational users are property owners. Sure, the Marriott may host some overnight guests who come to town to fish, tube, ski, etc. on Dunlap.

Is there another public launch aside from the one under 35? The narrow, riverine lake is 8 miles long. I could be wrong but if there is just the one ramp, I would be surprised if Dunlap is a major destination reservoir that is heavily used by non property owners.

I could be wrong.

---

No doubt about it. So, the argument that this is some major loss of public outdoors access is quite weak.

---

guess you could say the same thing about every public land or waterway in the state.

There is only a single public owned and maintained ramp but there were several neighborhood or pay for use ramps. Many of the users were not owners of waterfront property.

The ecologist crowd would much rather have the river back to its natural state.

There is only one natural lake in Texas.

mccjames said:

---

GBRA is **** show, every conversation I have had they are pompous asses that think they are doing you a favor to allow you on their water.

Now we see how inept they are, they have known for decades they need to work on dam's and kept putting on band aids. Usually doing it in the peak of summer dropping the lake to unusable levels. They have the Wood dam failure 4 years ago as a huge wake up call. Instead they spend millions of dollars to build a new building and move from Seguin to New Braunfels.

Now they say they do not have the money to do the necessary repairs

Class action lawsuit anyone?

My land value on lake Dunlap has doubled in the last 4 years. I am going to protest the hell out out of it this year. Should be a significant drop in values due to this.

---

Glad I live on and fish the San Marcos, however Lake Wood or 5-H as most people know it has been empty for years. How can GBRA justify fixing Dunlap before lake wood? I miss my crappie hole on Lake Wood we caught tons of fish out of that lake.

evestor1 said:

---

He is doing that as an agitator.

Recreation - brings 1000s of heads each weekend to local restaurants, bars, and shops. Lose jobs and revenue here - this is assuming that people with fully functioning kitchens eat out every meal. That said, this is probably one of your better arguments

Ecological - the government values this very high. Most people do as well. Losing 1000s of 100 year old cypress is a true tragedy to me. If they're 100 years old, they were there before, and will be there after. Don't act like the actual river is less than 100' away. It is normal for cypress to grow on the river banks (and all throughout river bottoms), not necessarily in the river bed. They will still be happy right where they are

Environmental - same as above again, the ORIGINAL river isn't going anywhere. What's lost is not nature.

Public space in a state nearly all privately owned - this is worth millions. This state is so heavy on private land use that having a place for public to do things is priceless. I'd argue that if a public lie is taken away over 50mm then we should start taking back easier land for public use. My favorite states to visit have massive public areas for hiking and fishing and hunting. We do not. Don't want to get in an argument about private land in Texas. But figure the cost/acre, and government entities could buy back land elsewhere much more inexpensively.

Tourism - hire an economist and ask what tourism is worth. It's probably millions in tax dollars from business earnings. I'd be willing to bet a vast majority of the tourism related to NB is floating the rivers/schlitterbahn, not recreating on Lake Dunlap.

Water treatment - can't tell you this one. Maybe just dump the water into the ocean. Where do you think it goes now? Lake Dunlap BETTER NOT be providing any water treatment to the water being dumped into it by the city of New Braunfels, or we have a serious problem. That water should be clean enough to drink before it's dumped into the river, to flow into San Antonio Bay and then eventually to the Gulf of Mexico.

Property tax - 200 waterfront property owners. Avg of 20k tax each year = 4mm per year. Add in value for waterfront hoods and houses with a view and you could probably double that 4mm. Take away the lake and that will be 50% revenue loss each year in perpetuity. Local problems should have local solutions. Tax base should not be GBRA's concern, nor the concern of the other people along the river.

Flood control - eff everyone. Let's flood everyone downstream for a mile each direction. FEMA probably has a cost for you but I don't What flooding did Dunlap control, exactly? My understanding is that it's a constant level lake - what comes in, comes out. In any event, the holding capacity of the lake itself is trival compared to the capacity of the floodplain. A drop in the bucket for any moderate to serious flood event.

Drinking water - let's drink Brawndo. Not only the water they sell but existing wells will be hurt by this. Stop watering your lawn. Not my problem. I need water in the river downstream. You not being able to impound it to take for upstream purposes helps me. It also helps environmental concerns that you listed earlier.


A 50 million fix is cheap compared to losing probably 5-10 mill in tax revenue per year, ruining an ecological habitats, and taking away recreation opportunities for a giant area. Fixing a lake is about more than the 200 lakefront properties. Then it's a no-brainer that the tax entity at loss should pay for a lion's share of it, because it's of trivial benefit to the others along the river.

---

ETA: No one gave a **** about anyone of these arguments when they applied to Gonzales & H5/Lake Wood, so don't be upset if someone doesn't want to pretend that they matter now.

Sounds like this lespaul dude is just jealous of "rich people and their boats" and is celebrating their loss of the lake.

What an asshat.

From what I have read, GBRA serves 10 counties with "primary responsibilities of developing, conserving and protecting the water resources of the Guadalupe River Basin" and was created to "develop, store and protect the water resources of the GRB for the benefit of its residents." Canyon Lake is a flood control reservoir and GBRA owns the rights to the water, which it uses to operate several small hydroelectric plants downstream from New Braunfels including Lakes Dunlap, McQueeny, Meadow, Placid, Gonzales and Wood that generate electricity for the Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative. Inasmuch, they are responsible for the dams/spillgates the Hydro-plants require to operate. GBRA is committed to partnering with customers and communities to ensure that future water and wastewater needs are met. It does list "recreational opportunities" Under it's Goals and Strategies for Operational Excellence. All of this can be found on their website.

GBRA has failed to maintain and update its infrastructure adequately despite a booming tax base in the past 30 years. It comes as no surprise that the Dunlap spillgate failed at 91 years of age when the same thing happened at Wood a few years ago. So it was a known problem ignored for too long. The entire system needs to be updated, like much of the infrastructure in the U.S. Should the State of Texas and/or Federal government bare some of this financial burden? I think so, but a substantial portion should be funded by GBRA and those it is charged with benefiting.

Regarding Lake Dunlap, what we're really talking about here is a limited public access recreational amenity that primarily benefits the 200 waterfront homes and nearby neighborhoods as someone quoted. Not unlike a country club. Sure it sucks for them now and for the foreseeable future, but none less that the preponderance of the public who has never enjoyed the privilege, so asking the broader public to pay for it will not and should not gather much support. Will it impact the local economy? Not at all. The rivers and hotels and restaurants of the greater New Braunfels/San Marcos/Canyon area still will be full. Few if any tourism, jobs or occupancy tax lost. As for property values, yep those waterfront homes will take a dive soon. Some will sell and new buyers will swoon in, not unlike Port Aransas/Rockport following the hurricane. But while that was a natural disaster, this one was man-made and preventable.

As another poster replied, it's a local problem that requires a local fix. In this case, the GBRA and other local taxing authorities. There may and should be some state/federal funding in my opinion, because at the end of the day I consider all waterways to be a public resource, but just as GBRA manages these resources for the benefit of its communities, they should be the ones to foot the bill. That's the reality of the "privatized zones." Any state or federal funding should include a commensurate level of viable public access which is not the present case. This event will garner much more attention than did Wood because 1) it's the second failure in the system; and 2) it's in a much more desirable location from a tourism/population density/property value point of view.

I agree with a lot of what you posted. The surrounding municipalities and counties who benefit financially from property taxes of those 200 homes and neighborhoods should contribute a large portion. The value of these home today and into the future should be very important to their budgets.

drummer0415 said:

---

Sounds like this lespaul dude is just jealous of "rich people and their boats" and is celebrating their loss of the lake.

What an asshat.

---

Whether intentionally as a troll or not, he posed a utilitarian question that gets to the essence of the matter. I could only imagine the cost of replacement with a full RCC dam and new spillway for all the lakes along the river. As a property owner along an undammed section of the Guadalupe, I could argue that we were better off having routine smaller floods, and certainly that none of the dams other than Canyon Lake have much of an effect on flood control. We would certainly be better off with fewer straws sucking water out as well.

Why does that matter, you ask? GBRA doesn't give two ****s what is good for the people of Belmont, TX. I can guarantee you that they don't consult us to make any decisions, like when they run the river bank full for months on end, causing rapid erosion of the river banks, destruction to and loss of property, centuries-old trees, etc. The benefit of a handful of landowners is not their concern. The question now becomes, when does that handful get large enough to start being a concern? They've already shown that the stakeholders of Lake Wood don't factor in, either.

They may fix Dunlap because it affects the water they can sell. If it makes sense $$$ wise, it will happen. Otherwise, they probably couldn't give a rat's ass about property owners, they haven't so far. Welcome to the "downstream property owners that get **** on" club... looks like that line is moving further north upstream. And we all know what direction **** flows.

GBRA revenue comes from water and electric rates. I checked a handful of random parcels along Lake Dunlap on Guadalupe CAD and did not see that GBRA collected property tax.

If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

Burdizzo said:

---

GBRA revenue comes from water and electric rates. I checked a handful of random parcels along Lake Dunlap on Guadalupe CAD and did not see that GBRA collected property tax.

If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

---

my argument is that the counties and municipalities do. And the lake drives up the value.

FCBlitz said:

---

There is only one natural lake in Texas.

---

This is not true. But I guess you would have to define what most call a lake. You are probably talking about Green Lake. But there is Sabine, Caddo, and Natural Dam Lake. Some lakes have grown from the building of dams. But they are natural lakes.

You also have to remember that when folks buy property they do a lot of homework. Schools, roads, trash, grocery. You also check to see what the county takes care of. Promises have been made by State and County to keep and repair public roads. The same goes for this dam.

Ragoo said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

GBRA revenue comes from water and electric rates. I checked a handful of random parcels along Lake Dunlap on Guadalupe CAD and did not see that GBRA collected property tax.

If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

---

my argument is that the counties and municipalities do. And the lake drives up the value.

---

My response was to this comment. I apologize for not making that clear.

Quote:

---

GBRA has failed to maintain and update its infrastructure adequately despite a booming tax base in the past 30 years.

---

On a previous page, I made a sarcastic comment about "partnerships" meaning the counties, cities, and other local governments that benefit from proximity to the lake (school districts) being asked to help pay for some of the dam repairs because GBRA doesn't have the money.

As a subdivision of the state, does GBRA have statutory taxing authority? It does not appear that they do. Maybe they should.

Burdizzo said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

GBRA revenue comes from water and electric rates. I checked a handful of random parcels along Lake Dunlap on Guadalupe CAD and did not see that GBRA collected property tax.

If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

---

my argument is that the counties and municipalities do. And the lake drives up the value.

---

My response was to this comment. I apologize for not making that clear.

Quote:

---

GBRA has failed to maintain and update its infrastructure adequately despite a booming tax base in the past 30 years.

---

On a previous page, I made a sarcastic comment about "partnerships" meaning the counties, cities, and other local governments that benefit from proximity to the lake (school districts) being asked to help pay for some of the dam repairs because GBRA doesn't have the money.

As a subdivision of the state, does GBRA have statutory taxing authority? It does not appear that they do. Maybe they should.

---

IMO the entire GBRA should be removed and the LCRA should absorb the former GBRA entities. It is my understanding that the LCRA has done a significantly better job of upgrading and maintaining its infrastructure. Although the LCRA serves a larger population and larger river complex.

Talked to a dude awhile ago that lives there.

He said the smell from decaying organic matter on the lake bed is really bad right now.

At least one home sale didn't close due to the dam failure.

Admitted that the lake is for recreational purposes and doesn't really impact the surrounding economy all that much other than adjacent property tax values. Compared it to a man made private neighborhood lake.

Has no idea what the plan is going forward; but said there was some discussion as to what it would take for residents raise finds to repair the dam temporarily until major repairs can be organized.

Parents had the same comments about the smell.

lespaul said:

---

Also can anyone confirm the flood control and drinking water claims? Honest question.

---

Go to google earth, find the dam at the head of Lake Dunlap. Go west 300 yards from the center overflow structure (the one that failed). That facility is a water treatment plant. The source water for that plant is Lake Dunlap. That facility services more than just the houses and properties directly on the lake. It is owned and operated by Canyon Regional Water Facility and it provides potable water to San Marcos in addition to other taps along the 24 mile main.

In addition to this treatment, GRBA also sells water from Lake Dunlap to the Hays/Caldwell WTP that services customers in Hays county and Caldwell county in the area.

lespaul said:

---

Surprised to see people get so riled up over asking a question. It seems like the biggest reasons given are the financial benefits of the dam. That maybe true. If it is, then one more question. Why not have dams the entire length of the Guadalupe to make it one giant "lake"? In other words, if it is a positive business model to have a "lake" why not scale that mode up ?

---

Starting at Canyon Lake, heading down river:

Canyon Lake Dam
Lake Dunlap
Lake McQueeny
Lake Placid
Max Starkel Reservoir
Meadow Lake

These are all essentially back to back

You actually have a decent run of "open" river downstream of Meadow Lake, but then you hit Lake Gonzales. Then Wood Lake (which isn't impounding water at the moment).

After that topography precludes any real impounding of the river because of the amount of land it would take up if you were to impound it.

That's 8 dams on the Guad - and it's not a big river by any definition. I'd say it's well impounded.

rootube said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

All dams and all gates leak, it is a matter of leaking within acceptable limits or not.

All damns,and gates are under a constant state of maintenance and repair, it is the nature of the environment they are in.

---

That all sounds perfectly reasonable but you have to scratch your head when two of the Dams you maintain have failed. I don't even really blame the river authority because they clearly don't have the money to maintain the system. I don't think a +30% failure rate is acceptable when you are in charge of dam safety.

---

It's not, never claimed it was. Just pointing out that dam maintenance and management isn't a cheap or easy issue, and with the ever increasing amount of regulatory overburden pushed down by the various levels of government, it makes an already hard and expensive issue harder and more expensive and smaller authorities that are evidently poorly run like GBRA have a harder go of it.

danieljustin06 said:

---

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.

---

Never heard this story. How big does a sand boil have to be before it becomes critical? Does water flowing up behind the base of a dam always need to be repaired?

drummer0415:
I almost spit out my coffee when I saw your comment that I am jealous of the rich folks on Dunlap. As I mentioned early in the post, I looked at tons of waterfront houses on Dunlap a few years ago. In the end, I said there is no way I would invest in a house whose value largely depends upon an ancient dam. So I got waterfront property elsewhere. Others chose differently and accepted that risk.

You said I am celebrating the loss of the lake. Where did I say anything like that? I am not celebrating any part of this. I have tons of friends on Dunlap and I feel bad for them. It sucks for them, especially as summer is approaching. Their life centered about boating on the lake with family. Now that is over (at least temporarily).

I am shocked how people react (name calling etc) to me asking simple and honest questions about things like this:

* Do we need to rebuild the dam?
* If so, who pays for it?

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.

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.

---

almost the exact same sentiment from my dad dealing with GBRA as their customer and dealing with both LCRA and GBRA as a vendor.

Depends on how big the boil is and if it's determined to be at a critical point. I'm sure there are formulas developed that provide guidance on this subject.

Not every leak or boil necessarily needs to be fixed, it is highly dependent on each situation.

schmellba99 said:

---

Depends on how big the boil is and if it's determined to be at a critical point. I'm sure there are formulas developed that provide guidance on this subject.

Not every leak or boil necessarily needs to be fixed, it is highly dependent on each situation.

---

That boil is about 4 foot in diameter at the base of a 96 ft. tall hollow concrete dam built in 1923. The dam was last inspected 10 years ago.

Quote:

---

Do we need to rebuild the dam?

If so, who pays for it?

---

Need the dam for multiple reasons.


Paying for it is what I am watching closely. There is an incredibly wide group that benefits from it and should be paying as I alluded to on page one. In my mind, the group with the most stake is the CADs and owners of VRBOs (there are 30-40 of them on the lake advertised and not advertised.) Individual property have terrible luck with the 'investment' in a lake property, but the CADs/VRBOs are crushed here.

I am surprised Graham Weston hasn't offered to pay for it yet.

VaultingChemist said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Depends on how big the boil is and if it's determined to be at a critical point. I'm sure there are formulas developed that provide guidance on this subject.

Not every leak or boil necessarily needs to be fixed, it is highly dependent on each situation.

---

That boil is about 4 foot in diameter at the base of a 96 ft. tall hollow concrete dam built in 1923. The dam was last inspected 10 years ago.

---

I'd lean towards it needing attention sooner rather than later, but that's just a guess. I'm not a dam engineer, just a lowly knuckle dragging contractor that has done some work on dams, reservoirs and control structures.

Could be a serious issue, could be something that can wait a while - somebody smarter than me should look at it and make that determination though.

"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?

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.

I am not familiar enough to make bold comments about Wood and have no interest in arguing Lake Wood.


Dunlap has become a very important lake from a financial standpoint as stated previously. It is also an emotional play as well - and most likely touches many more people than Lake Wood.

If Dunlap is not I would be very surprised. Reasons being that NB revolves around water. Money, recreation, etc. We can debate whether Dunlap is a private country club all we want, but reality is that it has one pure public ramp that sees a few hundred in/out over a weekend in addition to several pay per use ramps in neighborhoods. It has two major apartment complexes, a RV park that is constantly full, an events center, several waterfront communities, has water contracts, etc.


I do not have any personal opinions as to whether Lake Wood is ever replaced or if there is financial benefit. My uneducated opinion would be the CADs benefited very little from it as the primary land owner most likely had Ag exemptions. So take that out. Did Wood supply much water to municipalities? Does Lake Wood have a benefit from the standpoint of your question regarding Dunlap?

That said - fix Lake Wood as well b/c this state greatly benefits from public lakes. It would be money well spent in my personal opinion. I benefit from Dunlap, McQueeney, and 4-5 other public lakes throughout any given year. I do not demand that the governing bodies take care of these lakes, but as previously stated by another poster, there is an expectation that gov'ts do not let [infrastructure] fail without replacement. It is a bad look that and lowers trust among the masses.

evestor1 said:

---

Quote:

---

Do we need to rebuild the dam?

If so, who pays for it?

---

Need the dam for multiple reasons.


Paying for it is what I am watching closely. There is an incredibly wide group that benefits from it and should be paying as I alluded to on page one. In my mind, the group with the most stake is the CADs and owners of VRBOs (there are 30-40 of them on the lake advertised and not advertised.) Individual property have terrible luck with the 'investment' in a lake property, but the CADs/VRBOs are crushed here.

I am surprised Graham Weston hasn't offered to pay for it yet.

---

he the one building the house on the west side of the lake north of the dam with the large stone retaining wall?

No - he owns a doublewide on a bunch of land north of West Bank. I am pretty sure he bough the cattle company within the past year as well (rumor mill) - I have met his brother before, but never personally met him.

http://grahamweston.com/

evestor1 said:

---

No - he owns a doublewide on a bunch of land north of West Bank. I am pretty sure he bough the cattle company within the past year as well (rumor mill) - I have met his brother before, but never personally met him.

http://grahamweston.com/

---

the trailer behind the old west point Peppermill factory? Up river from southbank/county line road?

Was also an Owens Corning factory.