Water works You said:
The location of the proposed dam and water elevation are critical details that, right now, are completely undecided. But we will have an open discussion on Thursday afternoon with City Council and see what they have to say.
Please answer a couple of questions For me.
1. Do the Guardians have any information to use to fight this absurd proposal other than the information from the Region H&G water group proposals.

2. Do you think the City of College Station would be foolish to support the current proposal from the Region H planning group as currently proposed that would flood several prominent neighborhoods in our fine city.

3. Why would Region H pubilish an elevation of 273'msl if that is not the intended design level?

4. At what stage do you think it would be fair to give the Millican Reservoir the Unique site designation?

5. And how long should the unique status continue if no sponsor for the project is found?

6. If the city does support the current proposal and the site is listed as unique will the tax base from Pepple creek be potentially reduced for all of us other citizens to make up?

I just do not understand how the city could possibly not be against a proposal as you yourself admit has no details.
Thanks in advance for your reply.
And thank you for stepping up in the meeting the other night as you did.
You are very well respected for that action.

Region G has 2 openings on their planning group, one of the openings for G is the Liaison for the Region H RWPG. If the right person got on to fill this vacancy, along with the current BRA rep on H, This would give two persons on H to get the brazos valley more timely information.

Information like the vote H took in chapter 4 for Millican to be a strategy and chap 8 making it unique. then finally the vote to approve the entire IPP.

repeat of comment made 4/15 on unique

To clarify one point, whether the Unique Reservoir Site designation does expire in 8 years, it can be renewed again and again. Even if the designation does expire it does not impact whether Millican can be constructed or not, because the designation has done its job and put folks on forever notice.

And to truly prevent the construction of Millican after being designated it needs to be removed from the state and regional water plan. This can only be accomplished by convincing the regional water planning group (local group) this it not a viable project.
A viable project can either be a management or alternative strategy.

from 4/1 meeting --
“At this point,” Afinowicz said, “what we’re doing is looking at strategies that may be alternatives in the future and may be further studied and may be aggregated into future projects. There is still a lot of work that could be done on any of these projects. There are going to be a lot of questions about Millican that we may not be able to answer to your satisfaction at this point, simply because of the high-level nature of this plan.”

Once Millican is in the regional plan, it will always be in the regional plan, 10, 20, 30 years from now, either built or still studying its viability. In the past the millican battle was fought for 1-2 yrs, then went way for 15-20 yrs.

I just hope Afinowicz won't be studying this project doing the entire 50 year planning cycle currently being developed. He is young and could retire and still be working and making $$$ on Millican project.

joz - I believe both openings on the Region G Board are for "County" reps. These are usually, but not always, County Judges. I know that Judge Roe from Robertson County is submitting an application, and Judge Sutherland from Burleson County is already on the Board.

Joz,

Hasn't this plan already been on the books for over 50 years? At what point can we bury the dead horse they're beating?

I believe one of the main reasons this is not a viable option is because of the flood plain type of gradient of the Navasota River bottom. It's not like in the Hill Country, where they dammed a river between hills and got a lot of water for a few acres. In this case, they'll get a smaller amount of water for a huge amount of acreage. It will be more than three times as big as Lake Conroe, and I'm guessing it won't hold much if any more water that that lake. Combine relatively shallow depth with sediment issues, and the lake won't even last as long as Lake Conroe.

I'm not sure representation on the board will do very much good, as the one person on the board who is against the proposal is already being out-voted. This will probably take some high powered lawyers to shut it down and take it off the table for good.

It will also take a while. Maybe even another 50 years.

Educate me - Great questions, I will do my best to answer them:
1. The Region G and H draft regional plans are the best sources of information, but I supppose one could get the original USCE (US Corps of Engineers) study from the 40's, it was updated in the mid-80's, as a reference. I've never seen it, but it might have good info regarding potential dam locations and water elevations.
2. Kind of a tricky question - the map of the proposed reservoir, as shown by the Guardians with a water elevation of 280' or so, would flood out major portions of the City of CS and my personal opinion is that it would foolish to support that. If the proposed map showed the dam to be north of existing Hwy 30, so that very little, if any, of the City would be flooded, that's a different question.
3. I wish I could explain Region H's thinking - I have only been to one Region H meeting in my life, and that was in Madisonville recently. All I know for sure is, that at this very early point in the planning process, you need to quantify potential water sources. I'm guessing that Region H picked a water elevation (perhaps from the USCE study) so that they could then quantify the yield that the reservoir would provide, and then the cost per thousand, etc. It's more of a "for example, if the water level was xxx" than any kind of concrete number.
... more to follow ...

4. Fair? Fair depends on where you sit. It would seem fair to me to have the URS designation granted when an entity is poised to begin the reservoir construction process in earnest within the expiration period of the URS designation (which according to joz is 8 years). But here's the rub - if we have another drought like the 50's which is considered the "drought of record" then there will be a LOT of clamoring to increase our storage capacity - we came close to that last summer, until it started raining in July. And there's not many places around the State that are geographically suited for a reservoir. There's a lot of logic, from a purely planning standpoint, to getting the Millican (PC site) the URS designation now, because there's not many alternatives if it falls through (like Fastrill).
5. How long should it be continued? Another very tough question, that's more of a policy issue, and Joz said it's 8 years. If it's granted, then the question to renew it would have to boil down to whether the circumstances leading to the original designation have changed over those 8 years or not.
...more to follow ...

[This message has been edited by waterworks (edited 4/18/2010 10:18p).]

6. The map I downloaded from the Region H website, and then another I got from a consultant, do NOT show Pebble Creek within the area of the proposed reservoir. From best we could tell, the proposed dam went sort of along Tonkaway Lake Road, then turned north - it looked designed to keep water from backing up into Carters Creek. With this map, very little City of CS land would be flooded, the tax issue (if property values really did fall that much) would be mostly a County and CSISD issue.
And this highlights one of the biggest frustrations that all of us have - no accurate information regarding the extent of Region H's proposed reservoir.
I greatly appreciate your questions, I hope this has helped, and thanks for your kind words. I fully understand how difficult this issue is.

Water works,
Thank you for your time and energy. I am very proud to see that My City has a person of your caliber on staff. You are very knowlegeable and informed. Thank you for that.
I will see you on Thursday. And I bet you will be sitting in front of me this time.

Txagclan - you raise an excellent point, all of the "low hanging fruit" for reservoirs has been picked already. Millican (PC) would be a big, shallow lake with a rather low acreage-to-yield ratio. But as I mentioned before, the crux of the problem is that not many good sites for reservoirs are left - I suspect that Region H wants to see it get the Unique Reservoir Site designation because there's not many sites on the list after that ... just a guess on my part.

water works, isn't it the issue that the maps that were developed were based totally and factually off of the statistics from the Region H and Region G plan. There were 2 maps 270 and 280. If you have a GPS you can drive around and check elevations, these areas are in the plan and will be underwater. UNLESS the plan is changed. So why not fight this PLAN and force them to get a valid plan before you jump in bed with Region H. Promise they don't want to do you any favors they are looking out for themselves! ALSO if you eliminate all the beef cattle farms that are in the proposed site what are you going to eat with your water? Higher priced beef that is for sure! What about the millions of oil and gas that will be lost? how much will it cost us to drive our cars? More importantly God gave us this land to care for it and our forefathers fought for it, who gives Region H, Region G, or you the right to take it away from us? When there are other alternatives? If there are other ways why do this? One more point what will you do in 30 years when you are unable to pull water from this lake anymore because the sediment is too bad? Why not pull sediment out of the lakes you already have and start using them again?

Water works are you aware that the creeks feeding the Navasota River are so high in EColi that the water you are trying to gather will be unable to be used as drinking water. This comes from the TEQC and the reports from the last time they tried to build this reservoir!

I saw one of these stupid maps going around.
Half of College Station would be under water. Good Lord, do you 'guardians' actually believe this nonsense you are spreading?
Seriously?!

SaveOurBottom:

As I understand it, those for the dam are saying that all other options are too expensive. However I haven't seen any numbers to back up this claim.

I'm thinking that this proposed lake, because it will be so much shallower than others, won't last 30 years at all.

What also concerns me is that someone posted here that the sediment (if dredged up) would have to be treated as if it were toxic waste - so how healthy can that water be?

I'll be very surprised if major developers, oil companies, and banks holding mortgages in the area don't come together and fight this. Economically it will be a disaster - especially if it is to be a Corp lake like Somerville.

BTW - for those who think these are just farm shacks and range land that will be lost, I just drove past a house for sale below the 262 elevation level. It's going for half a million dollars! The house was built in the 1970s (and not fancy at all) and only comes with something like 20 acres.

As for fair market value, I saw in the paper today that land is going for $7,000 an acre (perhaps that land was special?). Certainly $1,200 per acre for the condemned land is NOT appropriate compensation.



[This message has been edited by Txagclan (edited 4/19/2010 5:33p).]

cstxag90 -

I haven't seen any proposal maps, but I was at the Conroe meeting. Several people asked for maps and were denied. I'm hearing that this plan is the same plan as the 1950s plan, only with new cost estimates. Back in the 1950s what now holds much of College Station was ranch land. If the dam were built in Millican, I'm guessing it would affect much of south College Station. Anyway, about the elevation and any maps already out there, you can go google the elevation levels yourself.

Theoretically they will have to condemn everything up to the actual level of the dam, even though they plan to keep the lake 10-20 feet below that level. Because the slope of the area is so gradual, that makes a huge difference in the number of acres that will have to be condemned.

Having said that, I do believe that no matter what happens, they will have to place the dam north of Hwy 30 for that very reason. However, that still won't save the developments north of there, nor does it answer the other safety issues like making sure all the oil and gas wells are capped off (and stay capped off).

Nobody has mentioned terrorism on this thread, but after 9/11 one of the fears was bio-terrorism and surface water reservoirs. What about other hazards? If they build the lake and if they build the bridge to reconnect Hwy 21, will they pass a law that bio-hazards and toxic waste cannot be trucked across the bridge?

One of the things that has people up in arms is that no one is saying what the actual proposal covers with regards to elevation - up to 262, 272, 283? That was another question brought up at the Conroe meeting. Their only reply was "look it up on the website." Someone did that on their iPhone, and quoted their site, to which the Board answered "that's a typo - that's incorrect."

That's a large reason why so many people are upset. It feels to them that this is not well researched, it's being ram-rodded through, and no one will clarify what exactly is being proposed. Besides, there are plenty of people still around who fought this 50 years ago and again 30 years ago.

I guess we will all have to wait and see how this plays out.

saveourbottom - you raise great points, I'm inclined to agree with you, that it doesn't make much sense to discuss the Unique Reservoir Site designation until it gets much better definition.

saveourbottom - yes, right now the fecal counts are high for contact recreation, at least for sure in Allens and Carters Creeks. We're working with TCEQ right now to develop a plan to implement the TMDLs (total maximum daily load) for bacterial contamination, which will improve the water quality in the creeks. But please note, this water is perfectly OK for treatment to potable standards, as a matter of fact, Wellborn SUD pulls water out of the Navasota every day and treats it for their customers.

Can anyone tell me for a fact if the Unique status is given to this project what area it would cover.
There has been so much talk about dam location this and dam location that. I think the question should be unique site location.
How could HDR not have that information if that is what they are about to ask the state for.
I think it would be like signing a blank check to give a unique designation and not spell out what area it covers.
Do I think Pebble creek, the Mall, rain tree, emerald forest and all kinds of other locations will be flooded. Absolutely Not. Will those areas be listed as unique?
Who knows. That is the problem with this whole plan there is no information avaliable.

it is a catch 22, Region H is not going to plan, study, investigate, draw up maps, until the unique designation is done. As I described before is is like a footprint in the shifting sand. There will be dam movement and elevation changes, and more in-depth research once is is unique.

Just like Bedias, once it got designated it became part of the reservoir site protection study. In bedias case, they kept the same dam site, but raised the elevation 20 ft. the study counted every oil & gas, gas and water well, pipelines, high voltage high lines, cemetaries, ect ect within one mile of the reservoir. they described the dam size, anyway all this was done by the TWDB and called reservoir proection study, googole it

Educate me - Hold on, the consultant for Region H is AECOM - they are the ones recommending the URS designation. The consultant for Region G is HDR Engineers, and they are not recommending the URS designation.

Water works,
Thank you for pointing that out, my mistake.
With that said do you know the answer to the question?

Waterworks - It's really interesting that you said Wellborn pulls water from the Navasota. We were told that they couldn't pull water from free flowing rivers, and that's why the Board was recommending the dam.

water works, the reason that Wellborn can pull water is because the water flows freely which is natures way of lowering the counts of bacteria in a river. But if you build the Reservoir this will no longer be the case and the counts will be too high for any use of this water. It will become a Hazardous cesspool and this has been documented in past attempts to build this reservoir. Have you not done your homework? have you read the past reports on the dangers of this Reservoir?

to 90, the maps that the guardian has created where built by a & m and were done to the specification of the Region H and Region G, if you don't believe then read the documents! The truth shall set you free, baby!
I don't beleive that the reservoir will be built to the specification in the report, so why designate the specification as a unquie site if you know they are WRONG and wrong is wrong as i tell my kids all the time!

Educate me - sorry, I thought your question was more rhetorical. The answer is NO, I cannot answer the question because there is not a definitive map that defines dam location, lake boundaries, or water elevation. This is why I believe asking for Unique Reservoir Site designation is premature.

saveourbottom - No, I have not done my homework, I have not read every report that exists regarding this proposed reservoir. I am willing to share what I do know in a respectful manner, and learn from others.
Please note that if Region G had been the one requesting Unique Reservoir Site designation, I believe we would have more information.

Txagclan - the Brazos River Authority sells water out of the Navasota and Brazos Rivers all up and down both rivers, the users pull the water out at a convenient spot. BRA is limited to how much water they can sell, based on the normal flow, the amount of storage (ie lakes) and the environmental flow (the minimum amount of flow required to maintain the estuaries near the Gulf). If the Millican Reservoir were constructed, it would add to the storage capacity and enable BRA to write contracts for another 194,000 acre-feet per year (according to Region H estimates).
Please note, I'm not a Surface Water expert, this is my rough explanation for how it works, I'm sure it's lacking in some ways, but hopefully it helps explain the situation.

keep focused on stopping the unique site designation with region H.
From the Q & A TWDB Unique site questions

11. Does TWDB have to include in the state water plan recommendations made in the regional water plans?

TWDB is not required to include regional recommendations in the state plan. However TWDB and the other agencies will consider these recommendations very seriously in developing the State Water Plan since the regional recommendations reflect the input and desires of the Regional Water Planning Groups. This philosophy is the foundation for Senate Bill 1 water planning. Furthermore, the legislature may designate river segments or reservoir sites not included in either the regional water plans or the state water plan.

Thanks, Waterworks! It's no wonder so many people are up in arms. The original plan calls for the dam to be in Millican (which would flood much of south College Station). At meetings the board either doesn't answer questions or says things can't happen, even though you say it's already happening. It seems to be either inaccurate information, or a whole lot of "we don't know."

It's confusing and frustrating!

This story is about to break wide open. We all owe the Guardians alot of praise. I now have a proposed map from the Region H group that shows the dam location. It does not flood the mall and the dam is not 4 miles long like they said it would be in there proposal. God forbid if the dam were ever to break.

It really galls me that they could not have offered this information in the public meetings. THANK YOU CLAY FALLS AND KBTX for the ground work but now you just have to run the story.

Educate me - does the map from Region G show the dam sort of along Tonkaway Lake Road? We probably have the same map. But the problem is the fact that Region H would never come and out state which map, or what dam location, or what water elevation - was the official version. That's not good planning.

There are apparently 2 or more maps. The ones I've seen at the water board websites appear 'reasonable', for lack of a better word, in that the reservoir is confined to bottom land. I have also seen one of unknown origin purporting the proposed dam will flood half of Brazos County.

I am by no means advocating for the taking of private land against the will of the owners. Were I in that position I'd be as rabidly opposed as anyone.

Whomever is circulating this other map though is flat out deceiving the public, destroying the credibility of the group fighting the dam, and likely turning support away from the cause by passing this fraud off as a genuine article.

fearmongering

cstxag90 - I agree regarding taking (that much) land against the owner's wishes, especially when that land is condemned and purchased well below fair market value.

As for the map showing so much of College Station flooded, it's based upon the actual report. I haven't seen that map yet, but the proposal (which was developed in the 1950's) called for the dam to be built in Millican (hence the name of the project). That's one of the major issues here. The water board just pulled out an old proposal and switched some numbers.

No map will be accurate because the Board hasn't made a decision as to dam height(elevation). Because the slope is so gradual in the area, a few feet higher dam can make thousands of acres difference.

I agree that these College Station maps make the whole thing ridiculous. I'm sure they did it to show just how ridiculous the proposal is.



* * * * *

On another note, I heard that last night the Grimes County Commissioners made a proclamation stating they did not want the dam. I don't know if it will have any weight in the end, but they've made their desires public.

cstx90, obviously you have not attended any Region H meetings and been fortunate enough to sit through their presentations. If you don't like the various numbers that have been submitted then perhaps you should request meetings with each and every single Region H board member to get THEIR facts straight so that they can better slam this reservoir proposal through to legislature. Guardians are using Region H varying numbers to prove a point, with great success, that their own research is flawed with conflicting data. Really, if you don't appreciate what the Guardians are doing, then contact Region H.

Clarification: their "research" appears to have been a cut & paste job, placed onto a sophisticated power point presentation and explained by some kid straight out of grad school. Maybe he was an intern, I don't know. I kinda felt sorry for him when besieged with Q's from frustrated affected landowners & concerned citizens alike. Well, not that sorry.

I am having visions of one huge shallow toxic pool of water with miles and miles of penitentiary-like fencing, signs posted everywhere...."DO NOT ENTER THE WATER". The "pool" will last maybe 30 years before it will silt up, just like the Brazos did.

Reckless are these reservoirs. Take the salt out, it works~



[This message has been edited by sunshinek67 (edited 4/21/2010 10:23a).]