Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Texas SB 1631

  1. #1
    Only the Green!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Spoetzl Brewery, Republic of Texas
    Posts
    4,187

    Texas SB 1631

    The Texas Senate has a bill working right now that would basically cut off flow on the Colorado river below Austin because those Birkenstock-wearing, patchouli-scented, WEPCo-shopping, assbag, *****tard, idiot, scumbag, dick faced, left wing, Eeyore-worshipping, halfwit jackaloons can't figure out how to conserve water. The bill would stop flows downriver any time the combined storage of Buchannan and Travis is below 850,000 acre-feet... which is any time the Highland Lakes chain isn't sitting directly below a hurricane. The bill is death to the Texas rice industry and to all the wetland projects that rely on the Colorado. It will also further damage the estuary between East Mat and West Mat because freshwater inflow will go from low to zero. Can't have *****in' plastic bags in Austin to save the environment, but you can damn sure cut off an entire river so you can water your god damned lawn.
    Having a Threecurl around is like having the nuclear option.

  2. #2
    SR Hunter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Waaaay back in the marsh,Tx
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by threecurl View Post
    The Texas Senate has a bill working right now that would basically cut off flow on the Colorado river below Austin because those Birkenstock-wearing, patchouli-scented, WEPCo-shopping, assbag, *****tard, idiot, scumbag, dick faced, left wing, Eeyore-worshipping, halfwit jackaloons can't figure out how to conserve water. The bill would stop flows downriver any time the combined storage of Buchannan and Travis is below 850,000 acre-feet... which is any time the Highland Lakes chain isn't sitting directly below a hurricane. The bill is death to the Texas rice industry and to all the wetland projects that rely on the Colorado. It will also further damage the estuary between East Mat and West Mat because freshwater inflow will go from low to zero. Can't have *****in' plastic bags in Austin to save the environment, but you can damn sure cut off an entire river so you can water your god damned lawn.
    Can't we just let dong nuke that place?

  3. #3
    Cool Club
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    at the camp
    Posts
    7,449
    Walton n Johnson said Austin was on the target list.

    Great use of descriptive language !
    Last edited by Duckster; 04-04-2013 at 12:57 PM. Reason: forgot to give 3 props for a great rant
    When in doubt, you can always pee on it.
    Neil Camp-Works for me, you technological Pygmy.

  4. #4
    Cool Club
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    5,026
    It is sitting in the Natural Resources Committee since March 20.

  5. #5
    Only the Green!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Spoetzl Brewery, Republic of Texas
    Posts
    4,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Runnin' 87 View Post
    It is sitting in the Natural Resources Committee since March 20.
    The full committee will hear this turd next next week.
    Having a Threecurl around is like having the nuclear option.

  6. #6
    Only the Green!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Deep East Texas
    Posts
    2,533
    3Curl, I sense you're not pleased about this pending bill.
    I voted for the other guy!

  7. #7
    Double Banded
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,038
    I live downstream of Austin between Smithville & La Grange in the river bottom. My house is just a little over a mile from the river. My neighbor and I have wells that are 100 years old. Her's went dry two weeks ago. So did another one down stream from us and one on the other side of the river. I've had to re-prime our pump twice, and we are rationing our use. Both the neighbor and mine have never gone dry, even through the drought of the 50's. But the river has never had as continual a low flow as it has in the past two years. The river has been a vital part of maintaining the water table. Always has been and always will be a critical factor. But everybody from Austin upstream don't or won't understand the impacts downstream and think they should have first rights, no matter what. And they think and refuse to believe otherwise that everything that is released is for rice farming or other 'trivial' needs such as the environment. They equate the survival of an entire river and bay system to being the same as spotted owl or salmander survival. They don't think those things are nearly as vital as San Augustine lawns and golf fairways.

  8. #8
    SR Hunter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Friendswood, TX/Prudhoe Bay, AK
    Posts
    1,586
    Pretty damn scary. Kinda surprised if the feds don't get involved soon with some EPA group or something about the damage done to the estuaries.
    November 18th 1999

    It's really funny Cap. It's Afghanistanimation.

    Team RNFK- Got stingers?
    Team OTM - Merganser Chapter

    Texas A&M University
    Class of 2000

    Shotshell Information Page

  9. #9
    Double Banded
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,134
    The Whoopers my be the lever to pry more water out of the highland lakes.

  10. #10
    SR Hunter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,656

    Texas SB 1631

    I dont understand why heavier water conservation measures are not in place for all of Austin and the highland lakes... It's crazy the water waste that goes on and it's also sad how the river looks when they release so little water .

  11. #11
    Only the Green!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Spoetzl Brewery, Republic of Texas
    Posts
    4,187
    San Antonio has the same water problems that Austin does, except most of their water comes out of the Edwards Aquifer. They instituted a ton of mandatory conservation measures, encouraged xeriscaping and worked with organizations like the Nature Conservancy to get easements on properties with extensive recharge topography. It solved their problems with minimal pain and expense while actually helping the environment.
    Having a Threecurl around is like having the nuclear option.

  12. #12
    Double Banded
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chooston
    Posts
    1,035
    Quote Originally Posted by gaudi View Post
    I dont understand why heavier water conservation measures are not in place for all of Austin and the highland lakes... It's crazy the water waste that goes on and it's also sad how the river looks when they release so little water .
    NO SHAT! All those freakin shopping malls and golf courses out there they water CONSTANTLY. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
    Post count, what post count?

  13. #13
    Only the Green!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Round Rock, TX
    Posts
    2,067
    Ask Lance Armstrong. He had the biggest water bills in Austin last year. So did your hero Jerry Jeff Walker.

    The whooping crane case was against the State of Texas (TCEQ) for granting water take permits from the river system that feeds the whoopers wintering grounds. I would like to see an environmental group sue the LCRA on these same grounds.

    Also, alot if this is driven by the weekend lake house crowd, and they are not all from Austin. I bet less than half of the lake front property owners on Travis, LBJ and Buchannon are from Austin. They want full lakes. I bet a bunch of the state legislators have lake houses out there.

    Bif needs water to run his 30-foot Scarab and 7 wave runners, by God!

    PS-almost all golf courses these days are irrigated with grey water.
    Last edited by Save the Cormorant; 04-04-2013 at 02:45 PM.

  14. #14
    Double Banded
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,038
    Whatever the reasons, ever since the lakes were built the flows in the river have been altered far beyond what was normal over the centuries of time before that. I understand the value of lakes and water storage and how that may be necessary for all the reasons it has to be, but there is a lot more to it than that. There have been identified, proven ways to keep the flows in the river below the lake more in tune with natural flows. But they haven't been done, mainly for the sake of greed and apathy. The flows have been controlled by the management of the dams and the majority of the time the water was released at the wrong times and to wrong degrees and other times the opposite was true. Used to be too high a flow during the warmer months than was necessary & that was done to produce electricity. Now that that practice has taken a back seat to lake owners and recreation & urban water needs, the pendalum has swung way to far to the other side, and they are flowing them way too low year around. I guarantee, if they hydroelectric demand was what it was just a few years ago, they'd be releasing more this very day & all the coming summer long. They are holding back all they can now to fill the lakes back up, no matter what it does downstream. I have no doubt if it weren't for freshwater inflows into Matagorda, they'd cut it off completely.

  15. #15
    Double Banded
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,134
    As it is now, I am not sure that Matagorda has water rights delineated by law. That is where the whoopers come in. There is no good answer. The simple fact is that too many people live in the watershed.

  16. #16
    Double Banded
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by El General View Post
    As it is now, I am not sure that Matagorda has water rights delineated by law. That is where the whoopers come in. There is no good answer. The simple fact is that too many people live in the watershed.
    The water management plan requires that critical flows for the ecology of the river and the bay system be met at all times and that is driven by several factors, two of which are public relations and several related laws that could be called up should those flows stop. But I don't think the inflows are 'water rights' in the sense that downstream users had true 'water rights' for useage equivalent to water available naturally prior to the installation of the dams. But the reality of it is those critical flows are true bare boned minimals and the negative impacts it things got down to that minmal flow would be catastrophic. It's something like 40 or 60 CFS at all times. That's in a stream with normal average flows from 500-1500 CFS. For reference, the flows before this rain at the Smithville guage had been in the 200-250 CFS range. At <200 CFS, the river barely flows. If you can imagine how a lot of our creeks get, with pocket of deeper water broken up by super shallow stretches and none of it seems to be moving, that is what it becomes.

  17. #17
    Only the Green!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Spoetzl Brewery, Republic of Texas
    Posts
    4,187
    Having a Threecurl around is like having the nuclear option.

  18. #18
    Double Banded
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cypress
    Posts
    1,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Save the Cormorant View Post
    Ask Lance Armstrong. He had the biggest water bills in Austin last year.
    I would think Lance would have a small water bill since he only has to wash one nut.......
    Team Water Swat

    Rollin hens on the water since 87!

  19. #19
    Only the Green!
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ft. Worth
    Posts
    2,780

    Texas SB 1631

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxbow View Post
    I would think Lance would have a small water bill since he only has to wash one nut.......
    Best post this week!

  20. #20
    Double Banded
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebsbud View Post
    The water management plan requires that critical flows for the ecology of the river and the bay system be met at all times and that is driven by several factors, two of which are public relations and several related laws that could be called up should those flows stop. But I don't think the inflows are 'water rights' in the sense that downstream users had true 'water rights' for useage equivalent to water available naturally prior to the installation of the dams. But the reality of it is those critical flows are true bare boned minimals and the negative impacts it things got down to that minmal flow would be catastrophic. It's something like 40 or 60 CFS at all times. That's in a stream with normal average flows from 500-1500 CFS. For reference, the flows before this rain at the Smithville guage had been in the 200-250 CFS range. At <200 CFS, the river barely flows. If you can imagine how a lot of our creeks get, with pocket of deeper water broken up by super shallow stretches and none of it seems to be moving, that is what it becomes.
    The problem with those numbers is that they did not take into account the freshwater requirements of the bay systems, merely the river ecosystems. Shrimp, trout, reds, crabs, seagrass all need more freshwater than what they are getting at those minimum flows.

    The bay systems need a seat at the table.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •