You don't think it's a safety hazard if just one of the spillways fail?

Well, if there are 3 gates and 1 fails the release rate is dependent on the orifice created by a single gate failure. If two fail the flow area is double this dewatering the lake faster.

aggiejumper said:

---

Their safety hazard is based off of all spillways failing simultaneously (that would be an issue if that happened). That has not happened on the 2 collapses and most likely won't as the weakest spillway will fail thereby alleviating the pressure on the others.

Regardless, this will be in interesting case to follow. Lots of money on both sides of the issue.

---

Given that GBRA has video evidence of boaters blatantly ignoring warnings and barricades in order to get next to the dams, I would say their safety concerns are very valid. The two dams that failed did so without warning. If some dumbass in a kayak is near to the next dam that fails, then I would agree there is a safety concern.

Have we established the fact GBRA doesn't have in their charter maintaining these dams for recreational use and to promote commerce?

No, not at all so long as you are outside of the buoys that are deemed suction and discharge danger zone. 11,000cfs is a lot of water but on occasion that is what is going over the dams after a few solid days of rain. To give you reference, the flood of 2002 was close to 70,000 cfs for over two days and 1998 was 200,000+ cfs. On GBRA's flood gauge chart, 11,000 cfs is on the border between "caution" and warning of small flooding possible.

As far as idiots in kayaks, that is Darwinism at it's finest. Maybe the county or cities can pass a law that is enforceable by sheriffs and game wardens to keep people a certain distance away from the danger zone. If I walked up to the edge of the Grand Canyon, passed all the warning signs and the rock below me gave way and I fell, could my estate sue the federal government for not marking the dangers correctly?

aggiejumper said:

---

The legal maneuvering begins. Will be interesting to follow the course of events.

---

This is gonna be a legally complex case thats gonna be tied up in the appellate courts for at least a decade.

If I was in charge of this ****, I would shift from the what's the solution to this problem ... to what are we gonna do for the next decade while the issue is litigated.

Its a wild situation. Better hope those gates have at least 10+ years life left in them and we manage to avoid a 100-year (flood that happens once a decade).

I can see the public safety argument for dewatering. Like the poster said above, if one gate fails probably not a big deal ... but if you are in some type of massive weather event like we've seen in recent years who knows what could happen.

Either weld them shut or just come back with more concrete for a solid spillway.

Not sure that's how it works. In your Grand Canyon example it would be more like an entity built 6 overlooks and in the past four year years two failed. They then put up a sign warning you to stay back but nothing preventing you from going on the overlooks.

The public safety isn't about what happens upstream of a break but downstream. Sudden rising water levels.

Not true in this case. The CFM in McQueeny due to the Dunlap gate failure was well below flood stage flows.

Aside from someone playing RIGHT underneath the dam, the danger is to anyone above it - close enough to be caught up and swept over. Very localized danger zone, but there is video of kayakers paddling right up to the gates and actually climbing up onto the dam.

edit - and I see that's already been discussed.

bottom line, i'm pretty sure that if the gates in McQueeny failed, my old house in Lake Placid MIGHT get water part-way into the back yard, but not nearly into the house. The normal level of the lake was about 1.5-2' below the top of my retention wall, and the lake was about 100-120 yards wide at that point. Even if multiple gates failed at once, it'd be a relatively low flow rate compared to a real flood stage.

Dunlap only had 1 gate failure. The release was slow over several days to a week. If more had failed the water level would have risen quicker.

But in any case these lakes hold very little water in the big picture.

Ragoo-I agree but must add GBRA is showing pics of boaters/kayaks upstream to enforce the safety concern. They are touting upstream with pic of idiots where they should be focused downstream but even so at 11,000 cfs or so that's a long shot to claim public safety issues.

Also the release was all less than 24 hours, it drained quickly.

Alta-The point is the people are blatantly ignoring multiple warning signs thereby putting themselves purposely in harms way. Those buoys were in front of the dam long before any of them failed, they are now moved back to allow for a much safer distance. You can't fix stupid or ignorance. Ignore danger signs at the zoo and you might get eaten by a lion, ignore warning signs in a subway and you might get hit by a train, etc.

Ragoo, you typed your last while i was editing mine. Even with multiple gates, I don't think there's serious flooding issues downstream. It's localized effects that they're touting as public safety issues.

I'll grant you there are parts of Placid that are pretty darn narrow and some of the houses are not much higher than the lake, so at a pinch point or two, there might be houses that get flooded, but very few. And I don't think anyone would be caught in such a "torrent" that they'd be in danger, unless they were stupidly trying to save a boat or something. Stepping 10' back from the bank would get you out of trouble.

Exactly, even at 35,000 cfs (assuming all 3 fail at once), there is only a minor rise in water levels and few if any homes are that low anymore.

I get the point and we can debate whether our legal system should work the way it does with regards to liability for idiots. Unfortunately we are where we are and if something like what happened at Dunlap hurt somebody it would be GBRA who was liable. Especially when there is a record of dam failures.

I can't fault an entity for wanting to avoid such a situation, especially when they are bleeding money just to maintain these dams for what appears to be only recreational purposes.

aggiejumper said:

---

Exactly, even at 35,000 cfs (assuming all 3 fail at once), there is only a minor rise in water levels and few if any homes are that low anymore.

---

I think you are probably right on this.

So what is the worst case scenario?

Someone dies and some entity that may or may not have sovereign immunity is held liable?

At this stage, the dam failure is a known risk. Courts have issue injunctions, its at a stalemate for the time being.

Really, whats the worst that could happen.

In any event, nobody is going to jail or gonna be held personally liable on this. Is there a risk of something bad happening? Yeah. It is what it is.

The situations gonna have to play out.

It may be the case that we've overstated the risk entirely.

aggiejumper said:

---

Exactly, even at 35,000 cfs (assuming all 3 fail at once), there is only a minor rise in water levels and few if any homes are that low anymore.

---

1000ft wide x 5 ft/s velocity would be 7' rise.

In any case the ultimate risk of "danger" is pretty low.

Easy to sit back and say the risk is low when you have no consequence for being wrong.

Solution: don't drain the lakes, but do close them to all boating/recreation activities since no one can stay out of the danger zone.

Apache said:

---

Either weld them shut or just come back with more concrete for a solid spillway.

---

It's not quite that simple.

Alta said:

---

Easy to sit back and say the risk is low when you have no consequence for being wrong.

---

my comment is just based on the limited water volume stores in the lakes. They are relatively shallow.

Max06 said:

---

danger zone.

---

Quote:

---

It's not quite that simple.

---

Obviously more complicated... but is it seems like a decent solution that would eliminate the moving parts (Gates) that are the source of the current problem. There are solid concrete dams across the San Marcos and the Guadalupe already. Heck the dam in Gonzales proper below H-5 is over 100 years old! No gates on it to manage on the main part of the dam. It can be done & I seriously doubt it would be millions of dollars per dam to accomplish.

I drive by the GBRA new HQ site 4x everyday and while the security fence and construction entrance went in earlier this summer I find it funny that nothing has progressed since the dam failure and all the backlash. Is this just a coincidence or did they put it on hold? Also plan on taking kids to Placid this weekend so they can see it while it's there.

Beckdiesel03 said:

---

I drive by the GBRA new HQ site 4x everyday and while the security fence and construction entrance went in earlier this summer I find it funny that nothing has progressed since the dam failure and all the backlash. Is this just a coincidence or did they put it on hold? Also plan on taking kids to Placid this weekend so they can see it while it's there.

---

GBRA new HQ site ...

Wait ... what?

The lakes under GRBA management are getting dewatered due to lack of maintinence on the dams and the GRBA is building a new headquarters?

LOL.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Beckdiesel03 said:

---

I drive by the GBRA new HQ site 4x everyday and while the security fence and construction entrance went in earlier this summer I find it funny that nothing has progressed since the dam failure and all the backlash. Is this just a coincidence or did they put it on hold? Also plan on taking kids to Placid this weekend so they can see it while it's there.

---

GBRA new HQ site ...

Wait ... what?

The lakes under GRBA management are getting dewatered due to lack of maintinence on the dams and the GRBA is building a new headquarters?

LOL.

---

Yup, left the Seguin offices and moving on to NB.

Quote:

---

GBRA finds $6 million to build new offices; no money for Lake Wood

---

They're so great at appropriating money:

Quote:

---

The GRBA listened to a presentation by its general manager claiming the GRBA needed more space, so the staff was seeking a motion to allow the general manager to entertain bids on relocating from Seguin to New Braunfels. The motion was approved unanimously, and that angered the membership of the Friends of Lake Wood Association.

"I am a property owner on what we used to call Lake Wood," she said. "I know you are all probably tired of us taking up your time, with that being said, we are tired of this Board wasting our time with empty promises. GBRA staffers have told us on two different occasions on the record that your plans for a $6 million office complex were put on hold. So you can imagine when we look (and see it) on the agenda today. Please remember that residents of Gonzales County and Lake Wood property owners are watching you spend money that could be used to fix our dam. I respectfully request that you take no action, until you complete the Lake Wood dam project."

---

http://www.gonzalesinquirer.com/stories/gbra-finds-6-million-to-build-new-offices-no-money-for-lake-wood,25268

https://www.ksat.com/news/lawsuits-filed-to-prevent-draining-of-gbra-lakes

If anyone wants to read the lawsuits, they are in that article. Very interesting stuff to read if you have the time.

TX AG 88 said:

---

Not true in this case. The CFM in McQueeny due to the Dunlap gate failure was well below flood stage flows.

Aside from someone playing RIGHT underneath the dam, the danger is to anyone above it - close enough to be caught up and swept over. Very localized danger zone, but there is video of kayakers paddling right up to the gates and actually climbing up onto the dam.

edit - and I see that's already been discussed.

bottom line, i'm pretty sure that if the gates in McQueeny failed, my old house in Lake Placid MIGHT get water part-way into the back yard, but not nearly into the house. The normal level of the lake was about 1.5-2' below the top of my retention wall, and the lake was about 100-120 yards wide at that point. Even if multiple gates failed at once, it'd be a relatively low flow rate compared to a real flood stage.

---

When the Dunlap dam broke, the flow rate on McQueeney was nothing more than after a big storm. Got all kinds of warnings about flooding, but it was a non issue

So what's the rub?

Is there a legitimate safety issue or not?

Is there a legitimate threat of property damage or not?

Could this type of risk be insured?

The new HQ issue is a no brainer. Look for the employees with school aged kids that stand to get moved to New Braunfels schools ... and there you have it.

The employees with school aged kids already live in New Braunfels, where their kids go to school.

Well ... thats one way to get a shorter commute.

There ain't much interest in down ballot positions until the lake in front of your lake house disappears.

But ... the mf'ers gonna have a nice new office building where they can sit around and think about how they ****ed up.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

There ain't much interest in down ballot positions until the lake in front of your lake house disappears.

But ... the mf'ers gonna have a nice new office building where they can sit around and think about how they ****ed up.

---

This post would be a lot more snarky if the GBRA Board was directly selected by the voters.

Any rumors or updates from the meeting this morning?

Nothing yet, other than it is crowded. Standing room only