Furlock Bones said:

---

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

---

The water was impounded by a private organization prior to the creation of GBRA. It is doubtful they had eminent domain to condemn the land where the water was impounded, so they probably had to buy the land when that happened. Or they may have gotten an easement to impound the water on the land. Of course, there were many fewer property owners at that time.

The answer is in the courthouse.

This is what Dunlap will look like in a year. Lake Wood is pictured.

Ragoo said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

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.

---

Are they homes on the river? If the answer is "yes", then they are riverfront homes. There is no guarantee that you have easy access that Soccer Mom Sally and her brood of rugrats can walk to while she's sipping on a mimosa.

---

call them whatever you want, you are obtuse if you think this protects the value of the homes.

---

I never said it protected the value of the homes, you are projecting here. I simply made a point that the homes are river front homes now instead of lake front homes, which will have an effect on how they are valued.

It's not like the lake is being used for a landfill or anything as dire as some might want to act. Sure, the situation sucks, but there is inherent risk of living on a lake. Usually its a risk of flooding, but in this case, the risk was catastrophic failure of a 90 year old man made structure on a man made lake that was created initially to generate and sell power to rural customers.

Just saw some of the pictures of the de-watered lakes in this thread. On second thought, I think you're right: a lot of people are about to get hammered in terms of home valuation.

Secondary problem: that will probably trigger a lot of covenants in lending documents for the purchase of the properties. Hopefully there aren't a bunch of local banks with a lot of exposure.

I already checked on the deed where the wife's family conveyed the land, and when Texas Power Company acquired the land (predecessor in title to GBRA) it was in fee (not an easement) to a vertical elevation. I assume the vertical elevation would be at or near the spillway elevation. GBRA owns the lakebed, not the abutting owners.

some pictures from Lake Dunlap from this article

https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/After-Lake-Dunlap-s-dam-partially-collapsed-14119817.php#photo-17904019

Sgt. Hartman said:

---

I already checked on the deed where the wife's family conveyed the land, and when Texas Power Company acquired the land (predecessor in title to GBRA) it was in fee (not an easement) to a vertical elevation. I assume the vertical elevation would be at or near the spillway elevation. GBRA owns the lakebed, not the abutting owners.

---

hellooooooo busted loan covenants.

Maybe they can get the GBRA to at least grant a long term lease on the lakebed and build a high end golf course or something.

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.

---

LOl, that hasn't changed at Cedar Creek.

blindey said:

---

Sgt. Hartman said:

---

I already checked on the deed where the wife's family conveyed the land, and when Texas Power Company acquired the land (predecessor in title to GBRA) it was in fee (not an easement) to a vertical elevation. I assume the vertical elevation would be at or near the spillway elevation. GBRA owns the lakebed, not the abutting owners.

---

hellooooooo busted loan covenants.

Maybe they can get the GBRA to at least grant a long term lease on the lakebed and build a high end golf course or something.

---

Community Garden

I expect the board meeting is going to be pretty lively today for GBRA

The "friends of mcqueeney" have raised the necessary capital (500m) to fund an attorney to create a water district, hire an independent engineering firm, and look into environmental impacts. There are going to be many fights from many fronts. Today will be interesting.

Or maybe you don't disclose tactics and funded dollars on a public forum. If FOLM wanted to share the details they would put out a press release.

I'm not a member, and I know the details because people are openly talking about it. If it isn't supposed to be known, I'm happy to remove my post.

Aggie_3 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.

I am not absolving GBRA of wrongdoing - I'm sure there has been mismanagement to some degree. Hell, it's a government agency after all. But the blanket statements made out of anger and likely a high degree of ignorance doesn't make you look good or smart either.

These lakes were created 80+ years ago with the specific purpose of providing power through hydroelectric dams, a metric crap ton of things has changed in that 80 year time frame - including the fact that those hydroelectric dams are small, obsolete and have far outlived their purpose given that there are a great many more efficient power generation sources in the area. The lakes have, as evidenced by this thread, become defacto private lakes for the landowners on those lakes. They have been relegated to pretty much a recreational capacity for the most part. I would argue that they are a source water for treatment, but evidently there are contingencies available because GBRA is willing to drain the lakes.

This is a Guadalupe County/GBRA/landowner issue as it currently stands.

---

And you do realize that's what I was basically getting at that 25 million in 55 years is a joke

---

No I didn't, thought you were referencing that the $25MM was wasted and that was what was gross mismanagement.

As to the dollar figure - you can't really say it's good or bad that only $25MM has been spent. Up until recently, there was no real need to spend money on the dams. Infrastructure is a funny thing in that it doesn't necessarily degrade or decay on a linear basis. Sometimes you simply have catastrophic failures that were not anticipated nor could have.

And sometimes you have situations where the can is kicked down the road for the next guy to deal with. I have no clue if this is the case, only that looking at the design drawings for Dunalp - it was not designed with maintenance as a priority, not unusual for a 1930's design.

aggiejumper said:

---

This is what Dunlap will look like in a year. Lake Wood is pictured.

---

Very few Dunlap owners are going to have that issue. That is a large flat on lake wood that dried up. Not all Lake wood owners even have that issue.

McQueeney may have similar problems, but almost all owners on dunlap will still be on the river.

Brad06ag said:

---

aggiejumper said:

---

This is what Dunlap will look like in a year. Lake Wood is pictured.

---

Very few Dunlap owners are going to have that issue. That is a large flat on lake wood that dried up. Not all Lake wood owners even have that issue.

McQueeney may have similar problems, but almost all owners on dunlap will still be on the river.

---

Not the big fat wide spot between clear springs and ferryboat/Schumann's beach, or the sand bar between zip rd and Mary's rd.

You are correct. I'm not a big social media person and missed that. Guess it's public now.

Ragoo said:

---

Brad06ag said:

---

aggiejumper said:

---

This is what Dunlap will look like in a year. Lake Wood is pictured.

---

Very few Dunlap owners are going to have that issue. That is a large flat on lake wood that dried up. Not all Lake wood owners even have that issue.

McQueeney may have similar problems, but almost all owners on dunlap will still be on the river.

---

Not the big fat wide spot between clear springs and ferryboat/Schumann's beach, or the sand bar between zip rd and Mary's rd.

---

So what - 1% of owners may have a bigger problem?

Where is it written that there should be no issues, ever, with man made structures or that you are somehow guaranteed to never have a negative impact to your home? Because that is really what you seem to be advocating should be the case. I get that it sucks this happens, but the idea that nothing should ever change is just not rooted in reality as well.

What?

Word on the Friends of Lake McQueeny page was that the board didn't vote to dewater the lakes but it was Kevin Patteson that had the final decision...

Kevin Patteson is a lawyer by training. He is probably erring on the side of caution. Better to get sued by landowners over loss of waterfront than to get sued by the family of the deceased after a dam failure.

Looks like GBRA got a little money to spend:

Quote:

---

The Guadalupe Blanco River Authority (GBRA) was authorized for $165,855,000 in financing for planning, design, acquisition, and constructions of a new water source, with treatment and distribution facilities.

---

Not for the lakes though. They aim to take 4.9 BILLION gallons of water per year from Caldwell & Gonzales county aquifers. That'll put a dent in the groundwater levels for existing wells for sure.

Quote:

---

The proposed project is the first of two phases for the GBRA's Mid-Basin Water Supply Project. This phase will produce 15,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater from the Carrizo Aquifer in Gonzales and Caldwell counties. The Authority will construct between seven and fifteen new water wells operating under current leases of the Authority.

---

GBRA project



The only thing I found showing how much water is in Gonzales County's Carrizo Aquifer was from 1965.

Quote:

---

The Carrizo Sand in Gonzales County contains an estimated 80 million acre- feet of fresh to slightly saline water in storage. This figure itself is not significant, however, because much of the water will not drain freely to wells.

---

https://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/numbered_reports/doc/R4/report4.asp

https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/GBRA-board-faces-backlash-from-residents-who-14366518.php?utm_campaign=CMS+Sharing+Tools+%28Premium%29&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&fbclid=IwAR3B-JWJuSNOCxkE35StsZdRJ99NsOKTnpYATa-FPGsnNkIf7HEbNNHhLF0

Quote:

---

SEGUIN Officials with the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority appeared empathetic but unfazed after nearly two hours of pleas, demands and criticisms from lakefront property and business owners hoping to reverse the agency's decision to drain their reservoirs next month.
A nascent group calling itself Save Our Lakes launched a campaign aimed at delaying or killing the plan to begin dewatering the GBRA's four remaining lakes on Sept. 16. But General Manager and CEO Kevin Patteson remained steadfast Wednesday that the agency would proceed, based on fears that a catastrophic spill gate failure could be imminent and potentially deadly.
Gates on two 90-year-old dams have already failed one at Lake Wood in 2016, and another at Lake Dunlap in May. Both failures led to a quick draining of the lakes, returning the Guadalupe River to its natural channel and leaving property owners with mud flats instead of shoreline.

"We heard everyone, and we understand that this is a very difficult decision," Patteson told a packed meeting room. "We've been presented with some really terrible facts. At the end of the day, we don't want anyone to get hurt."
He decided to drain lakes Gonzales, Meadow, Placid and McQueeney in that order after reviewing a recent report by the engineering firm, Black & Veatch, hired by the GBRA to inspect spill gates' hinges.
It extracted a hinge assembly from one of the spill gates on Dunlap that was still in operation and found that of the three components that comprise the assembly, one was "highly questionable for continued use" and another was "unacceptable for continued use."
"Our opinion is based on the observable 90 years of corrosion and not on any nonvisible flaw in the materials or original design," the report states.

---

I watched part of that meeting last week and my parents were there. Everyone laid into the board pretty hard but not surprisingly, they didn't flinch. It just sucks. We've been on McQueeney for over 30 years and it all comes to an end in a couple weeks

Cstrickland05 said:

---

I watched part of that meeting last week and my parents were there. Everyone laid into the board pretty hard but not surprisingly, they didn't flinch. It just sucks. We've been on McQueeney for over 30 years and it all comes to an end in a couple weeks

---

though not on the lake my parents have been just a few blocks off of Dunlap for 30 years too. Moved there in 1988. Grew up on the lake nearly everyday during the summer. It is like a piece of me is gone.

I feel for the folks who have homes on McQ and Dunlap. I've spent tons of time on both and I know the residents love their lakes. I've had numerous friends move to those lakes just so they can boat/ski daily.

Hopefully, they can join together to form tax districts to privately repair the dams and refill the lakes soon. Perhaps this cost can be offset by their property tax reductions.

Hopefully, the local gov't will help make this easy for this to happen.

Just wait until the old lakebed fills up with weeds & willow trees & isn't being maintained by anyone.
H-5 in Gonzales is terrible.

Some of y'all on the other lakes should at least contract someone with a shredder to mow the old lakebed down periodically. Looking out over a field is much nicer than looking at a snake infested brush fire waiting to happen.