What's the source of the 270 or 280 elevation? I think a buddy has land within that elevation and not sure he's ever heard of this lake.

How much land is being considered outside the 280 elevation? Would they "take" land t the 300 ft elev? or were?

Waterworks: Right to do research. We are foolish to ignore science & developing technology. You are respected for what you do, however wrong you might be. We have a difference of opinion. This is an open forum, allow me to express my belief system. God entrusts us as humans to being good stewards of the land. Being a good steward means caring for the earth in such a way that leads to sustainability. Leviticus 25. As a landowner, it would be incumbent upon me to sacrifice my land, land that has been in the same family for 130 years, so that viable water sources are created for the greater good. What I am having a hard time wrapping my head around is the conflicting data surrounding water de-sal plants. They work, technology is developing to make it even more cost efficient, other areas of the world are using it, why pursue a route of destruction & devastation, especially when the end result would only last 30 years? Waterworks when you suggest alternative sites for dam location, you yourself are encouraging a culture of thought that is acceptable to wiping out entire households, businesses, forest & wildlife habitats when there are alternatives. Waterworks does Region H have a sound water conservation plan in place? Probably not. I am still doing research. I have respect for you in taking the time to show up @ the Guardians meeting. Research is good, this URS is wrong, unconstitutional. The point was brought up @the meeting that Region H&G are worried that our river will be declared wild & scenic, looks like they are the ones fearmongering.

quote:

---

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.

---

That will make it hard for east Texas Aggies to find their way to campus.

Maybe they can take a ferry....

agdx88: This is just one of the major flaws in their proposal. Verbally they are telling us the LAKE elevation would be 263. The actual proposal says something about dam height of 282(?). When asked that specific question (exactly what elevation is being proposed), the board member said that decision hasn't been made yet. That was at the Conroe meeting. The board member in charge said "go look at the website. It's all there." The website said 272 for Lake elevation and when pressed, the board member said that was a typo, but wouldn't clarify.

In actuality, the lake level doesn't matter. Everything below dam level will have to be condemned. On top of that, if it is a Corp of Engineer lake (which is a real possibility), then there would be no lake front property, and they would condemn all adjacent property. On top of that, they will have to condemn additional acreage (well above the 71,000 amount quoted) for wildlife reclamation.

Which lands near the lake will be reclaimed for wildlife will likely be the poorest families who cannot hire expensive attorneys to make sure their land wasn't what was chosen.

In addition, even if your friend has property over the 290 mark, check topography maps around the property, because there will be some islands. You can be sure that all islands will be condemned for public property.

So, to answer your question, no one knows what elevation. The Board simply said that decision hasn't been made yet.

sunshine - De-sal costs vary a lot, depending on where you are. The two main variables are the salinity of the source water and the method for disposing the reject flow. We studies de-sal for the CS area, with a source water of about 8,000 ppm (sea water is about 30,000 ppm) and the RO (reverse osmosis) costs were reasonable, but we would have to use deep well injection to dispose of the ultra-salty reject stream from the RO membranes. It was the deep well injection that made this option not cost effective. And the other factor was getting the permits for the source water, the source would be Simsboro, and it's not certain at all if we could get those well permits. It's still an option that's out there, but it has major obstacles.
Other cities might be able to get de-sal done cheaper, if their situation is different. I know some Cities like El Paso are doing it successfully, but I'm not fully versed on the details of their operations.

[This message has been edited by Educate me (edited 4/21/2010 9:23p).]

I heard that Fred Brown was at the Waco meeting, and that he said both the Mayor of College Station and the B/CS Chamber of Commerce were against the dam.

Anyone know if there is any documentation from either the Mayor or the Chamber of Commerce?

If indeed the Chamber of Commerce is against the dam, then it is clear to them that the dam would NOT be good for our economic growth.

to Txagclan, yes don't focus so much on the dam location and elevation. So much land will be taken in front, back and side of the reservoir, way more than the reservoir itself. they need mitigated land for parks, flood control easements, and most of all, land to replace any sensitive flooded acreage. It the land flooded is grsssland or similar, 1 acre to every acre flooded. But if the land is wetlands, bottomland hardwood forest and any rare land, mitigation will be at least 4 acres to every 1 flooded.

It seems like a crazy plan, but all the perfect reservoir sites are long gone. Not much sites to pick and chose from. I don't know the correct solution to stop millican, but saying it won't happen because it doesn't make sense is not enough to get it taken out of the water plan.

Houston owns about 900.000 acre feet in Lake livingston. The luce bayou project it starting in 10 years to bring that water to Houston. Maybe Ft bend could buy 100,000 acre feet of livington from Houston.

Clan
I was there and I heard Representative Brown say it. But I have not seen anything on paper.

Every local organization will come out against this boondoggle even more loudly than the TTC. Houston has some serious clout, and will throw big dollars around between consultants and 'advocacates' though. But at the end of the day I cannot for the life of me see this getting ok'd. Every single elected official needs to hear your opinions. Silence on this one equals tacit approval.

Well, I just watched the channel 3 10 pm news. They had an independent person create the map based on the data from the Region H information. It matched the Guardian's map from what they said. Now obviously they won't be flooding half of College Station, but it's clear that Region H is not being responsible in their proposal.

It also seems clear to me that Region H will be spending a lot of money promoting their agenda and trying to prove they need to build the dam.

Williams creek and pebble creek subdivisions will not be able to see the sun in the mornings until about 10:00. They will be in the shade of a really big dam.

Thank you guardians for bringing this story to the public. Our country needs more groups like this to stand up for whats right. Has anyone seen the work being done on Hwy 30 in the river bottom. Looks like they are about to double the highway width. Sounds about right. Lets spend millions of tax dollars on a new highway and then flood it.

TTC might not be dead after all. I haven't read it yet, but a final environmental impact study (think that's what it said) of the TTC was dropped off to the public libray and is supposed to be available for the next month and then tossed. I thought the TTC had been shot down so what's really going on?

threecat...the landowners that would be affected by the TTC know that it's not dead. They continue their battle with Gov Perry on a regular basis.
I find it strange that the Mayor of CS is speaking against this Millican Dam but he was for the TTC. Hummm??? Both plans take multitudes of land from property owners, TTC just doesn't affect his budget.

what was the outcome of the waco meetings?

I do not know if there was an outcome.
They talked we listened. We talked they pretended to listen.

There is a map that was shown on KBTX. Can whoever has that map scan it into a digital file and post it somewhere so that the public can view it? If it could be scanned into a high resolution file that we could zoom into, it would help.

My property is going to be very close, less than a mile, from the edge of the lake according to topographical maps. I sit at just about 300', so I think I should be fine, but I'd still like to look at an actual map.

CinchAg97, you will be above any flood level, but your land could still be condemned for habitat reclamation or if it's a Corp of Engineers lake, like Lake Somerville.

Any map will not be accurate because there is no exact plan being proposed. The proposal lists Millican as the proposed dam site, but I think they know they can't put it there and flood nearly half of College Station.

Anyway, the best information out there is "we just don't know. Those decisions haven't been made yet." (that's from the Region H water board)

As a landowner, all I can recommend to you is that you continue to watch what Region H does, and stay up to date with news media.

And of course the standard "hurry up and wait."

to CinchAG97, all what txagclan said, I agree 100%. to add to that, what if region H pushed back the dam site and raised the elevation. I saves CS, but then other areas are impacted, maybe you, as don't know your location.

What if in 10 years you sold your unique designated property, at 300msl, but 2 yrs later they condemned it for a lakefront park, can you be sued?

better question, would someone what to buy your property 10 years from now, with the intent of never moving again?

I attended the Region G Public Hearing yesterday in Waco. Since it was a public hearing the Region G Board could only listen, and take no action.

I will admit that when I first heard about this, I thought, "No way. Ever." But even the map in Region H's plan shows a very large reservoir that, depending on the extent, could place my house underwater or on the shore.

If you have comments on either the Region G or Region H plans, whether they are opposition to the Millican Reservoir, to point out errors, questions about population, etc., please send them.

Deadline for comment on the Region H water plan, which is really where any comments in opposition to the Millican reservoir need to be sent, is 5:00 PM on June 8th. Details here: http://www.regionhwater.org

Written comments on the Region G Plan will be accepted until 5:00 PM June 25th. Details here: http://www.regiongwater.org. Also on Region G website, audio minutes of meetings are posted later, so you can listen to comments made during the public hearing at a later date.

*Edit to fix links*

[This message has been edited by egret (edited 4/22/2010 1:52p).]

There's been a ton of information here on this, so please don't flame me if I don't understand or am misinformed. It seemed they were debating this on one of the radio stations this morning, and that there was a study that showed this would seriously impact the area where Sam's and The Movie Theatre area in CS-and they had quotes from an expert to counteract the study. Who's right?

luvmydoc - They're all correct. It's just a matter of where they put the dam, is my understanding from the story on KBTX's website. If they put the dam in a certain spot, the independent expert from Texas A&M said that the area around Sams WOULD be flooded, but then redid the estimate by moving the dam north a few thousand feet and that area was fine, but it would still flood parts of Hwy 30 to Huntsville.

This is a very, very interesting story.

If a person get on the region h board, do they stay on forever? When is their term up? How can the public get a person off the region H board who does not represent the correct views?

A lady that is with the stop marvin nichols reservoir said they have been successful replacing board members one at a time and now things are changing. She said it takes a while, but once you get the right folks on the board, you get better decisions and information.

I don't think they are appointed by the Gov. He does appoint the members of the River Authorities and the Water Development Board though.
My guess is they are appointed by the Various River Authorities.

This is the way it was explained to me. I do not know this to be factual.
The original members were appointed by the state. if a member decides to leave they have the oppurtunity to nominate who is to replace them.
Again I do not know this to be fact but it did come from someone who I respect.

Ijust got home from 4.5 hours of meetings at the College Station city hall. The City Council is against the Unique reservoir designation.
And yes Hwy 30 from bird pond to King oaks trailer is proposed to be flooded.

The Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group members serve for a specified term. They all represent a certain interest group, like Counties or Municipalities or Agriculture or Environmental or Industry. Right now on the Region G Board, there are two vacancies, they are both for Counties, and I do know that Judge Roe, from Robertson County, is applying. The existing Board members select the new members.
I expect Region H is the same setup, although I have not verified that - it would be easy to look on their website for that info.

Jan will keep'em honest, but Mike Sutherland is on G and has no trouble speaking his mind. I have a good feel for our G folks, but I want to learn more about this H group.

Last night on Chip Howards show I heard the water guy interviewed.....he said that Water Boards can make plans to use water that comes from outside there region.

For example, Region H (damn Houston) could plan on using the Millican Reservoir for a water source even though it is IN Region G.

Basically, at every turn, from the Region G AND H water board meetings, to their recommendations to the Texas Water Commission, to the State Legislature that there is NO WAY IN HELL, they are going to flood half of Brazos County to give Houston more water !

When Lake conroe and Livingston were built, Houston got 70% of the water rights, with the remaining 30% going to the river authorities to sell. The trinity river authority has sold all their 30% to huntsville, tenaska power, ect, all gone locally. When Millican is built by the brazos river authority, they will sell their 30% to BCS area. All CS is saying move the dam site north a mile and sell us water.

Millican will be jointly developed by the gulf coast water authority (ft bend/brazoria) and the BRA. Look at the region h plan. Ft bend can't build reservoirs, only river authorites can like BRA.

region h has 2 other reservoirs outside their region, little river and little river off channel. yes regional planning groups can go outside of their area for water. Millican is replacing the little river project which is smaller than millican.

to clarify, millican is both in region g and h. planning h members from leon and madison voted for millican. If folks have a beef, try to get those members removed from the planning group.

In the water boards report anyone can see that their are better choices than the millican reservoir. The little river being one of them. The smaller projects are more cost effective in per acre and per gallon categories. Also they have a much smaller population and environmental impact.

millican is a horrible idea and we should let the state know it.

CS Council voted unanimously for NO RESERVOIR on the Navasota. They also said in their meeting that they will be submitting a letter to Region H. I have also heard that Brazos Co. Commissioners & Duane Peters are also against the dam proposal. Fred Brown has stated that he is helping the Guardians gather up lobbyists to fight this thing. Rumour is that Steve Ogden is opposing this as well. The biggest news I heard last night was Co. Judge Arthur Henson has changed his vote on the Millican Dam. What I want to know is this, I have heard two conflicting theories on IPP submissions for URS. One is that it can be changed, modified from original proposal that Legislature votes on and the other theory is that it cannot be changed, so Legislature will have to revote. Which would be another 5 years from next year's vote. Wild & Scenic River or Wildlife Refuge could be a real possibility. Federal Government does not have to recognize URS and can bypass state laws. Doing research, so any input is appreciated.