Burdizzo said:

---

Yep, the local taxing authorities are going to take a hickey when the property values drop. They didn't cause the problem, but they get the damage. On the other hand, the GBRA does not exist to provide recreational lakes and high property values. The loss of tax revenue by the local authorities isn't their problem, technically and legally speaking.

---

The Local tax districts certainly didn't cause the problem, but they also had no issue assessing the higher values and spending the money...

Brad06ag said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Yep, the local taxing authorities are going to take a hickey when the property values drop. They didn't cause the problem, but they get the damage. On the other hand, the GBRA does not exist to provide recreational lakes and high property values. The loss of tax revenue by the local authorities isn't their problem, technically and legally speaking.

---

The Local tax districts certainly didn't cause the problem, but they also had no issue assessing the higher values and spending the money...

---

Not disagreeing with this at all. The recreational benefit of the lake was a fringe benefit of the dam that many other people became dependent on with no requirement for GBRA to maintain it.

Burdizzo said:

---

Brad06ag said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Yep, the local taxing authorities are going to take a hickey when the property values drop. They didn't cause the problem, but they get the damage. On the other hand, the GBRA does not exist to provide recreational lakes and high property values. The loss of tax revenue by the local authorities isn't their problem, technically and legally speaking.

---

The Local tax districts certainly didn't cause the problem, but they also had no issue assessing the higher values and spending the money...

---

Not disagreeing with this at all. The recreational benefit of the lake was a fringe benefit of the dam that many other people became dependent on with no requirement for GBRA to maintain it.

---

this is a big issue for me. If GBRA was a net zero 20 years ago on the dams then why didn't they propose dewatering the lakes then? This too right on the heels of the 1998 flood and prior to 2002. The GBRA set a 20 year president of expectation that the lakes will continue into perpetuity.

Burdizzo said:

---

The loss of tax revenue by the local authorities isn't their problem, technically and legally speaking.

---

but the plaintiffs bar's boner probably has a boner just thinking about taking a whack at it.

Lots of "not my lake, not my problem" going on around here. Eventually, this thread will mirror the Conroe Flooded Kingwood thread. So many experts!


Even though not everyone owns a lakehouse on this chain...it is a loss on so many levels for the general population.

Furlock Bones said:

---

evestor1 said:

---

Lots of "not my lake, not my problem" going on around here. Eventually, this thread will mirror the Conroe Flooded Kingwood thread. So many experts!


Even though not everyone owns a lakehouse on this chain...it is a loss on so many levels for the general population.

---

that's the thing. it's really not.

---

not mcqueeney, Dunlap sure. That boat ramp is full every weekend. Placid was full last weekend.

Furlock Bones said:

---

evestor1 said:

---

Lots of "not my lake, not my problem" going on around here. Eventually, this thread will mirror the Conroe Flooded Kingwood thread. So many experts!


Even though not everyone owns a lakehouse on this chain...it is a loss on so many levels for the general population.

---

that's the thing. it's really not.

---

Loss of economy(local businesses, real estate, taxes) and loss of environment(fish, trees, and everything else that lives in and around the lakes) seem pretty big to me.

Ragoo said:

---

this is a big issue for me. If GBRA was a net zero 20 years ago on the dams then why didn't they propose dewatering the lakes then? This too right on the heels of the 1998 flood and prior to 2002. The GBRA set a 20 year president of expectation that the lakes will continue into perpetuity.

---

Were those floods tied to issues with the dam?

Isn't the issue now that the dams are ticking time bombs and there's no money to replace/repair? If that's the case, the net zero comes into play now because nobody wants to bite off that amount of debt for something that produces no income. If the damns were considered stable/reliable in '98 and '02 then I would see why they'd continue on.

Here is the list of loss to general population

On recreation alone:
1 - how many VRBO days lost?
2 - how much tourism revenue is lost to lost VRBO days?
3 - how many days will be lost on the water for people in general area
4 - how about the aquatic accessories market? (surely some jobs lost here)

So find a method to discount that into local economics of foreclosures, lost business revenue...somewhat decent sized issue. If Zilker Park shutdown would it be an issue? We could make a definite link between city parks and the top of the river by I-35. Several thousand patrons are there each weekend. Why are they not tearing the waterfall out? May as well considering these impediments are worthless.


That is just a small part of the issue. You could probably back this into "how many beaver nuggets do we sell to McQ VRBO patrons and does this create extra wages for cashiers" if you felt like it. So saying this is not a net negative for general population seems very "not my problem" to me.

03_Aggie said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

this is a big issue for me. If GBRA was a net zero 20 years ago on the dams then why didn't they propose dewatering the lakes then? This too right on the heels of the 1998 flood and prior to 2002. The GBRA set a 20 year president of expectation that the lakes will continue into perpetuity.

---

Were those floods tied to issues with the dam?

Isn't the issue now that the dams are ticking time bombs and there's no money to replace/repair? If that's the case, the net zero comes into play now because nobody wants to bite off that amount of debt for something that produces no income. If the damns were considered stable/reliable in '98 and '02 then I would see why they'd continue on.

---

We had the floods because of biblical rain fall. In 98 we had water up to the 2nd floor

03_Aggie said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

this is a big issue for me. If GBRA was a net zero 20 years ago on the dams then why didn't they propose dewatering the lakes then? This too right on the heels of the 1998 flood and prior to 2002. The GBRA set a 20 year president of expectation that the lakes will continue into perpetuity.

---

Were those floods tied to issues with the dam?

Isn't the issue now that the dams are ticking time bombs and there's no money to replace/repair? If that's the case, the net zero comes into play now because nobody wants to bite off that amount of debt for something that produces no income. If the damns were considered stable/reliable in '98 and '02 then I would see why they'd continue on.

---

hindsight is 20/20 but the amount of debris and volume of water moving down the river over the dams I am surprised they didn't fail then.

Lowering the "pool" level would have limited the impact of the 2002 flood.

Additionally, post 1998 Dunlap was lowered for 18 months or more to inspect and remove debris. It would be interesting to know if GBRA did an inspection of the gates then and the results of those inspections.

schmellba99 said:

---

Aggie_3 said:

---

Bottom line GBRA has spent 25 million total on as they say repair and maintenance on all the dams total over the last 55 years according to what they've been saying. That is gross mismanagement

---

You do realize that $25MM over a 55 year period on submerged structures isn't all that much, right?

And that there are literally hundreds of factors that go into determining what repairs are necessary, when they are necessary, etc. And that often times you can make an inspection on a structure one day and it is is really great shape, but a month later after a major event things can change significantly.

---

Can you explain those inspections further? The video of an engineer's perspective at https://gvlakes.com/ shows one of the exposed hinges with metal loss which led to the collapse. A simple visual inspection would have caught this.

These are a couple of dumb questions:

-I assume that Dunlap is not like the Blanco River where property owners own to the centerline of the river?

-If not, do they own up to the bulkhead or to the river channel?

-I wonder if residents would be willing to grant more public access, either with purchasing land for a public park within Dunlap's boundaries in exchange for the city, or county most likely, participating in a funding solution.

texan12 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Aggie_3 said:

---

Bottom line GBRA has spent 25 million total on as they say repair and maintenance on all the dams total over the last 55 years according to what they've been saying. That is gross mismanagement

---

You do realize that $25MM over a 55 year period on submerged structures isn't all that much, right?

And that there are literally hundreds of factors that go into determining what repairs are necessary, when they are necessary, etc. And that often times you can make an inspection on a structure one day and it is is really great shape, but a month later after a major event things can change significantly.

---

Can you explain those inspections further? The video of an engineer's perspective at https://gvlakes.com/ shows one of the exposed hinges with metal loss which led to the collapse. A simple visual inspection would have caught this.

---

There is nothing simple about an underwater visual inspection, especially in an environment with very limited visibility like this portion of the Guadalupe. You are talking about visibility of less than 1 foot in most applications.

Even less simple to do any repair work, especially on a design like this one that was not really made with future maintenance in mind (typical of older designs).

That very report you linked to stated that it took over 2 weeks for divers to do a destructive removal of the existing hinge assembly on Gate 1. My experience is that underwater contracting is expensive, time consuming and usually not something you do on any regular basis because of the headaches associated with such work (not to mention the cost).

Looks like those drawings were done in the 30's. Hard to read the date, but looks like 1931. That is 89 years. Which explains the condition of the hinge when they brought it to the surface, as well as the materials of construction.

Questions I would ask are:
1. What is the design life of that gate?
2. What is the established inspection frequency?
3. What is the established inspection protocol?
4. Have other inspections been made? If so, what were the recommendations or results?

One also must keep in mind that numbers 2 and 3 above likely don't have an answer - because at the time this was constructed and for most of the life of GBRA, I doubt seriously there was any mandate for any type of PM or inspection protocol. Most of the time these things aren't required until something like this happens, then everybody goes nuts and demands procedures to be developed for everything under the sun. Now, one could make an argument that dam inspection should have been on the list of things that needed a procedure and frequency established, but simply because something should have been on the list doesn't mean that it was. Or that the state had the money to get to those dams at that point in time.

schmellba99 said:

---

blindey said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

there's simply not a cogent argument to be made for keeping and fixing the dams at this point.

---

The local taxing authorities might chime in.

Anecdote: long ago, my folks had a place on Cedar Creek Reservoir. It was always interesting to drive down some of the streets around the lake. On one side, there would be nice, large, well kept homes with (typically) upmarket cars in the driveway. On the other side, there would be pastureland, some trailers, shabby/unkempt homes, etc. I recall someone telling me that acreage that fronted on the lake was worth at least 5 times land that didn't have water front (and that was for parcels inside of incorporated cities attached to utility districts).

So when lots of very pricey "lake houses" on McQueeny turn into simply "houses" the tax base gets absolutely hammered. A nice home in the middle of nowhere with an unnecessary dock just doesn't have the appeal and exclusivity as a home on a "nearly private" lake.

---

They won't be just houses - they will be riverfront houses. Still a significantly higher valuation than not, and is there much of a difference between the valuation of a river front and a lake front (honestly don't have a clue on that one)?

---

Really good point and it honestly raises another question: how far do the homeowners lot lines extend? All the way to the middle of the river bed? If that is the case (and trust me I have no clue whether that is the case), a lot of these homeowners may suddenly have a current house and a big, empty, buildable (subject to necessary site work) riverfront lot.

schmellba99 said:

---

blindey said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

there's simply not a cogent argument to be made for keeping and fixing the dams at this point.

---

The local taxing authorities might chime in.

Anecdote: long ago, my folks had a place on Cedar Creek Reservoir. It was always interesting to drive down some of the streets around the lake. On one side, there would be nice, large, well kept homes with (typically) upmarket cars in the driveway. On the other side, there would be pastureland, some trailers, shabby/unkempt homes, etc. I recall someone telling me that acreage that fronted on the lake was worth at least 5 times land that didn't have water front (and that was for parcels inside of incorporated cities attached to utility districts).

So when lots of very pricey "lake houses" on McQueeny turn into simply "houses" the tax base gets absolutely hammered. A nice home in the middle of nowhere with an unnecessary dock just doesn't have the appeal and exclusivity as a home on a "nearly private" lake.

---

They won't be just houses - they will be riverfront houses. Still a significantly higher valuation than not, and is there much of a difference between the valuation of a river front and a lake front (honestly don't have a clue on that one)?

---

Not necessarily, on McQueeney, unless the river goes all the way around the island, which I doubt, there will be tons of houses with just bare land in front of them.

I am betting that McQueeny won't be permanently lowered. Especially if there is no structural issues with the dam and or the gates, or repairs can be made relatively easily after inspection of the gate systems.

Dunlap and Wood? My guess is those will be more complicated issues.

schmellba99 said:

---

blindey said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

there's simply not a cogent argument to be made for keeping and fixing the dams at this point.

---

The local taxing authorities might chime in.

Anecdote: long ago, my folks had a place on Cedar Creek Reservoir. It was always interesting to drive down some of the streets around the lake. On one side, there would be nice, large, well kept homes with (typically) upmarket cars in the driveway. On the other side, there would be pastureland, some trailers, shabby/unkempt homes, etc. I recall someone telling me that acreage that fronted on the lake was worth at least 5 times land that didn't have water front (and that was for parcels inside of incorporated cities attached to utility districts).

So when lots of very pricey "lake houses" on McQueeny turn into simply "houses" the tax base gets absolutely hammered. A nice home in the middle of nowhere with an unnecessary dock just doesn't have the appeal and exclusivity as a home on a "nearly private" lake.

---

They won't be just houses - they will be riverfront houses. Still a significantly higher valuation than not, and is there much of a difference between the valuation of a river front and a lake front (honestly don't have a clue on that one)?

---

Go stand on a dock on Dunlap and tell me with a straight face that these are now "river front" homes.

Same on Dunlap. The river bed is 8-10 feet below the bulkhead in most places.

Unless someone intends on deeding this land to each homeowner to the middle of the river.

Now you burden the homeowners with up keep of river bottom soil.

Wait until a major rain loosens the bulkheads and docks start falling.

Not even remotely "buildable."

You people really need to see what lake Dunlap looks like today and then you might, might have an appreciation for what will happen on McQeeney and Placid.

when they impounded the lakes, was the land acquired by a government entity? that will be your answer on where the property line stops.

Do you have a link for some before and after pictures? Been looking and really didn't find anything good. BTW not disagreeing with your point at all, just my curiosity to what has happened to that area over time. Thanks

I have a couple of after but don't know how to host.

If your own a dock on the lake, you either own the land under it, have an easement or a permit to have it over the water, or you're trespassing.

rsmithtesiusa said:

---

Do you have a link for some before and after pictures? Been looking and really didn't find anything good. BTW not disagreeing with your point at all, just my curiosity to what has happened to that area over time. Thanks

---

Just do a Google image search for Lake Dunlap and it will get you a lot of media pictures

Looks like riverfront property now

Don't believe that is fully dewatered. That is down close to the dam.

Burdizzo said:

---

If your own a dock on the lake, you either own the land under it, have an easement or a permit to have it over the water, or you're trespassing.

---

if the land was condemned not acquired, i wonder if there are families out there that would have claims to the land from the lakes edge down river bottom. now, that would be a crazy scenario to think about depending on the language of each howeowner's surveys and title.