Just a heads up for you lake limestone property owners, some land owners in Brazos and Grimes county are trying to force the BRA to permanently lower the level of the lake, as much as 10ft lower. They think this will reduce the flooding of their bottom land during heavy rains. Apparently their fight has made it to Austin and there are some pretty powerful people backing this. Spread the word and contact Trent Ashby and Charles Schwertner and let them know you are against it.

Yeah, I need the whole story. Family has a house on Limestone and 10' would put the waters edge at least 5' from the end of the pier. First time I am hearing about this.

Here is a story KBTX did on it last month.

https://www.kbtx.com/2021/03/17/property-owners-near-navasota-river-take-flooding-concerns-to-brazos-river-authority/

A friend of mine that works at the capitol and is a former resident of Lake Limestone, contacted us today about it to spread the word that the fight has made it to Austin.

Correct on your power plant statement. The lake was built specifically for the power plant and during the 2011 drought, the lake almost went too low for the intake that feeds the plant.

I remember that year. We were able to walk like 50 yards past the bulkhead. I don't remember the lake level, but it pretty much shut down most activity on the lake.

civilized05 said:

---

I don't see how 10' can be achieved realistically without severely altering the entire lake. We've got a place on Lies Branch and 10' would effectively kill our entire section, much less some of the other smaller branches.

I really don't understand how people can purchase waterfront property and then are shocked when it floods. I guess you could argue the frequency, but still, if you don't want to deal with occasional flooding, don't buy waterfront property.

---

Not far from you. I'm on Lambs Creek

Which power plant does it serve?

Just gonna take a swag here since I've been on lake limestone my whole life. The lake would change by thousands of acres if it dropped 10 ft... particularly on the north side.

Bucketrunner said:

---

Which power plant does it serve?

---

Jewitt

I don't know anything about Limestone, but here is an editorial from the other side

https://theeagle.com/opinion/columnists/lake-limestone-needs-better-management/article_7f7f2fc0-9674-11eb-afcf-33591dbb8090.html

bigfoot10s said:

---

Bucketrunner said:

---

Which power plant does it serve?

---

Jewitt

---

Jewett

AggieStan said:

---

Remember folks. Lakes weren t built for entertainment. Built for water storage

---

Is that a legal proposition? Will it provide a defense in the event of a lawsuit?

I'm wondering why the state seems willing to even consider favoring property owners who knew or should have known that their property would flood, and want that changed, while disfavoring property owners who bought near a lake, intended to be near a lake, and are abiding by that.

This is a little bit like me asking the government to require you to plant a different type of grass in your yard to match mine, especially if I can show that your overwatering (or lack of watering) is affecting my grass.

With most situations, the right answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

Is the Eagle author editor right in that releases from a lake can be managed to be gradual which can assist with flooding downstream? Sure. Is dropping the lake level a significant amount impacting people at the lake and the downstream folks having no flooding the right answer? Probably not.

Could the solution be .gov doing the right thing to find a good answer for both parties? Damn right. But of course, its either you or me and no trying to find an answer that works for everyone.

My question is has anything changed to cause this or more flooding? Are rain events or the intensity increasing, that then leads to more frequent or higher flood plane levels? If so, I can see increasing the water storage in the lake some, but 10 feet sounds absurd. Maybe 1 foot could be potentially helpful...

If the flood levels have not changed, and it's just new property owners whining, then it needs to be left alone.

montanagriz said:

---

bigfoot10s said:

---

Bucketrunner said:

---

Which power plant does it serve?

---

Jewitt

---

Jewett

---

I believe Luminant's Oak Grove plant pulls out of it as well. Not as much as NRG in Jewett but they use some to keep their reservoir full.

That Beagle editorial was written by Mike Southerland.....the squeaky wheel formerly on Bryan city council.

Here's a snip where he admits he's wrong, but still wants to change the operation.


The lake is not designed to be a flood-control lake, but there is a flood stage listed by the United States Geological Survey at 370 feet, seven feet above the 363-feet-pool level in which spokespeople have said beyond which is unsafe. The lake level can rise safely to the flood stage of 370 feet as it was designed, or it would have been set at 363.

I would think with recent events maintaining stability in the power grid state wide would trump a small few flooding.

Essentially the same situation as Harvey flooding in Houston, but grid wide implications.

I was on a call when this started. So many variables.

One that nobody has brought up is the current plans Texdot has in design right now for Hwy 30 at at the river.
Currently Hwy 30 acts like a damn during every river flood and every Wickson creek flood. I have seen a six foot difference in water elevation from one side of 30 to the other.
Hopefully the States engineers will rectify this with the new design and construction. If so this will help the folks up stream of 30 and will further inundate the folks down stream.
When you start changing water flow you are stirring a big hornets nest.
Water law is a very interesting study.

Anybody closer to this have any updates? I keep getting second hand Facebook messages/texts from folks (I don't have facebook) and recently received a BRA letter and everything seems to contradict each other.

Sounds like this isn't going away even though it should (the lake should stay at its current levels). Sadly these days you can't just resolve some problems with a sound ass whoopin'.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Bottomland is meant to contain flooding. That's why it is so cheap. People shouldn't be trying to impose upon others to change that after they bought it knowing what it is.

---

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who see this scenario and think "if I can buy some cheap bottomland and then somehow convince the government to cut off the water supply that floods it, I'll make a killing."

Bet he is happy with his land right now!

I sat in on a call with the Leon County judge and the BRA last week. There has been a big push on the legislators to kill the bill by all the people who are against this. Can't find anyone who supports this. There was some sunset bill that needed to pass that would help provide a roadblock against the proposed bill and it was passed. Unfortunately I did not get which one and what it did but I know the BRA was relieved that it passed.

Simple solution.

Buy dirt! Raise your swamp to a level above the flood line!!
Build a levy to hold the water out. Don't whine about flooding when you buy swamp land.