So what makes you guys be jerks about it? Your laco of understanding the science behind ot or just the desire to say something is difficult thereby impossible and not worth pursueing?

Bunch of innovative revolutionary types around here, eh?

Look, people alteady build giant pnuematic bags... Repurposong them isn't that wild of an idea. And you might lose an a-rig on one but you're not rupturing that stuff with a dinky bass hook.
http://atlinc.com/inflatables.html

Good brainstorming with yall though. I'm glad everyone was friendly and receptive and able to follow the conversation. Evjoy your empty lakes and praying for rain. Obviously that's working really well as a long term plan...

In theory it could be done. The problem is that they build the lakes to support the cities for drinking water. Fishing is just a byproduct of the lake as is the other recreational sports on the lake. We're lucky that they stock them. I doubt you'd ever find a politician willing to spend the kind of money just so a few fishermen could have a full lake.

As long as there is deep water that could be displaced, there is water for the fish. Just have to learn to adapt to deeper fishing.

It would be a better use of money to put in extended ramps and new deep water access ramps say down by the dam area...and all new lakes would be built with launch ramps that extend to the deepest water before the lake is filled...a lot cheaper and less to maintain than big air bags...I give you credit for thinking outside of the box !...Merry Christmas !

It would be awesome to see a project like this attempted but the masterminds that control the lakes would never spend the money on it because they do not fish or do anything fun at the lake and they couldn't care less about the businesses such as the marinas that depend on the water levels.

When the population of a state grows from roughly 16 million to 26-28 million in 25 years and in that same time period the state increases it's major water storage by less than 5% then you have the situation we have know.

The money may be better spent by constructing new resivoirs to try and catch up with our expanding population. People are flocking to Texas at the rate of 80-100k per month. Throw in all the bada bing bada boom, oops I'm pregnant and we need more water storage capabilities.

I like that you are thinking and your ability to go outside the box. Thinking like that may very well be the key to solving a lot of our issues.

BUT, when the rains finally come you are forced to send the water downstream when it gets back to "full pool" level which means you have simply decreased the storage capacity of the lake with the "displacement plan". But YES you did accomplish getting the full pool shoreline when the lake was actually 1/2 full.

Who would maintain and operate this water displacement system?
When I go to the ramp your lucky if they have tags, pencils, toilet paper, etc. available.

How bout instead of allowing all that water to run down the mississippi into the ocean, we build a pipeline and pump some of it over here ? Probably be cheaper. Lighten up man, Some of these guys are having a little fun. You know what they say about "If they can't take a joke".

It would be more cost effective to extend the ramps.

You empty bladders and lake returns to full capacity.

As for who will maintain it... They already have to build more reservoirs, and reservoirs making more money means more money to spend pn them I'd imagine so recreation has to be wprth something to consider. The fishing indistry in Texas represents a lot of money... What about lakes like Eagle Mountain, Cedar Creek, etc. Where they have boat houses along nearly the entire shore? What does extending boat ramps do for those? Nothing. A longer boat ramp does nothing for the marinas either. It isn't about going out and learning to fish the deeper water.

*shrug* it was just an abstract simple idea, and being a simple fisherman, I was curious if some fancy scientist/engineers had thought of or tried anything similar to anyone's knowledge coz I'd like to see it expanded upon. It is within the realm of possibilities... Honestly it isn't even that farfetched at all and could pr9bably be automated pretty simple into spillway controls as well as far as who woupd control it. Just because they don't dp [censored] at the ramps at your local lake doesn't mean that spillway isnt manned, and like I said, the displacement system would be reservoir control that aided fisherman and anyone whp uses the lake itself.

I can appreciate your thinking. In theory, the inflatable bag would sure work. I'm pretty sure the bag would have to be very large to have any kind of positive effect. As mentioned above, I think the answer to the lower water problem is to improve the ramps and main lake access. Unfortunately, the government will never kick in the millions needed to improve any of this for us, and the private sectors can't deem it financially feasible to sink hundreds of thousands of dollars in dredging a cove and extended ramps.

I think a more logical answer is for us all to buy big Bubba trucks where we can back down in the mud and launch into the main lake.

It would take huge air bladders to raise a lake by 5 feet like you are saying.

No to mention you would be increasing the surface area causing more water loss due to evaporation. Also just because you and I don't fish the deepest portions of the lake what about the striper/cat fisherman that do?

Doesn't shallow water evaporate the fastest? Let's displace water into the shallow flats so it can evaporate at a faster rate to reduce the volume even lower. Better keep them air blather air pumps running nonstop.

I'm an engineer and found the idea interesting so I did the math for you. It's a pretty straightforward application of Archimedes Principal. I'll spare you the details, but using some ballpark figures for the capacity of Fork at full pool and that fact that it is somewhere close to 7 feet low right now you would need to displace roughly 3.8 billion gallons of water to raise the water level 7 feet at the shoreline. If you were going to use a bladder like you suggest it would need to be 20 feet deep and cover roughly a square mile of surface area. You would also need thousands of concrete foundations buried in the lake bed with chains attached to hold down the bladder which would have an upwards force in excess of 136 billions newtons of force. Could it be done? I believe so, but I'd guess the cost would run in the billions. A slightly cheaper alternative would be to erect a new dam wall that cordoned off a couple of square miles of the lake. As the main lake level got lower, you could pump water out into the main body to raise the level back up. Reversing the condition would be as simple as opening a flood gate. Unfortunately I do not see an economically feasible way to displace water to regulate pool. It's a interesting idea but not very practical in application.

I actually think it's a great idea. Volumetric loss would have an exaggerated effect upon the water column based on how the displacement was arranged within the body of water itself. And air bladders? That might get tricky because you'd have to weight them down and you could still have one rupture. A super dense liquid would be ideal but none come to mind that we could pump out quickly and store or that if the bladders did rupture wouldn't contaminate the water itself.

The benefits would be awesome...... Full pool lakes until the rain comes. One day there will be something that solves this dilemma and we will wonder why we didn't consider it early. It's unfortunate so many on here are so obtuse.

The idea has merit..... It's just one that has a lot of unknowns at this point. When I saw the indoor mountain range with people skiing down it 24 hours a day I realized you can't think "too big" anymore.

J