There's a few blogs out there trying to explain it all, it's complicated, but in a nutshell, it looks like Luminant (previously TXU) wrangled the rights to a lot of water from PK for it's Comanche Peak power plant, and expansion. It also looks like there was some under the table land valuations prior to sale. Water from PK to Granbury to Squaw Creek for Luminant.

"In April of 2008, Luminant dropped objections to Permit 5851 for the sale of water by the BRA in exchange for an arrangement that BRA would sell Luminant approximately 100,000 acre feet of water each year. This is approximately the amount required to maintain full lake levels in Lake Granbury.

Around that same time Luminant was working to expand the nuclear facility at Comanche Peak. In September 2008 they filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build units 3 and 4 at the facility. This expansion would require a significant new source of water for cooling purposes."

https://www.empowertexans.com/economy/the-plot-to-drain-possum-kingdom-and-lake-granbury/

It sure seems,IMO, many cities/companies/municipalities have all discovered water as a source of 'revenue'. Many lakes here in North Central Texas are in really bad shape due to lack of rainfall BUT, many are being continually drained to whatever/whoever it sure seems purely as a source of money!
This sure looks like a dangerous trend. Yes the lakes are for water sources for citizens, fishing on these lakes is purely a fortunate byproduct. But continuing to SELL water from these lakes/rivers just for income is beginning to set a dangerous trend only worsened when there is no or not nearly enough rainfall to replenish these lakes and rivers!!
None of these continuing actions or even proposals of actions to sell waters from the lakes and rivers in these areas should be allowed to continue UNTIL they are replenished through natural rainfall. When that ever happens.
Even more, even if they recover....the process of 'selling water' purely for profit, not considering the original purpose of supplying drinking water to the surrounding peoples/communities.
Someone better wake up, start to investigate and hopefully STOP the sale of our natural resources....as long as, like now, they are in much shorter supply!
Just my 2 cents....

If all you said was true IMO there would be no restrictions at all but simply not the case. Yes I agree cities budget for the profits from selling water but been that way pretty much forever this is not a new phenomenon. I hate seeing water wasted as much as anyone but the issue here at least for N. Texas is we have received 18 inches or rain to date this year and the norm is 36 for an average year. Couple that with less than average rainfall the last few years and hence why most of the lakes are in such bad shape. We can play the blame game all day long but the issue is lack of rainfall.

No, don't misunderstand. Not a 'blame game', but it is a shame to waste/sell our given natural resources.
Isn't it? Seems that way to me....Just my opinion

Need to stop building HWY and build more lakes so we will have water

Gotta have rain to fill new lakes, and we should have been building new lakes as populations increased.

In this one instance for PK I agree it is more iffy if what some are saying is correct that it was not intended as a water reservoir resource. That said for most of the other N. Texas reservoirs they were built first as a water resource and the cities using that water helped pay for the lakes. They do make money when they sell the water but they have costs associated with that as well.

Also I am not sure I am completely on board defining a man made lake as a natural resource.

Your entitled to your opinion just as am I and every one else.
Look, I'm not going to argue. My comment was NOT posted to further or start one.
We have very few natural lakes here in Texas. Most of our water supplies are man made as you state. Corps of Engineers. They DO contain a natural resource: WATER.
That is what I am referring to.

another reason it is hard for the lakes to catch water is a lot of folks with more than 2 acres have new ponds dug on them and if they are not new they were dug out deeper since the lack of rainfall started.

[/quote]Ok hang on here Luminant has nothing to do with BRA or any PK generation. Also there has not been enough rain on the PK watershed to come anywhere near filling PK. I had a place on PK from 1980 until 2005 and I now live on Lake Graham which is down 14 feet. Lake Graham does not have the ability to let water out unless it goes over the spillway and it has not done anything in the last 3 yrs. but go down. If PK had got enough runoff to fill it up, Lake Graham would have gone over the spillway. But PLEASE tell how any of this is Luminant's fault.
Also you have not seen the Brazos running bank to bank into Lake Graham because the Brazos does not run into Lake Graham. Our watershed consists of Salt Creek and Flint Creek.

Johnny [/quote]

Ok first Johnny I did not say the Brazos was running into Lake Graham. I said that I had seen the river running bank to bank at Graham, guess I should have said Eliasville, but didn't think many would know where that was. I know that the Brazos doesn't run into lake Graham. Next the reason that Lake Graham hasn't filled up is because of lack of rain. The Brazos watershed in west Texas has had 23 inches of rain on it in past 45 days and has run at flood stage into PK.
As far as Luminant I am not going to waste my time googling it, you can though. They purchased the Brazos electric company in something like 2000. Then everything I said in my post followed. I did mistakenly say they bought the BRA. But by buying the electric company, ie the Dam at PK they essentially control the BRA. Then they were a major factor in getting the permit for the BRA to sell water, to them for Squaw Creek, but by getting this permit it allowed the BRA to sell water to any entity. I was at every public meeting at PK when this was happening listening to the BRA assuring all of the land owners that they would never let it stay lower than where it got when they were generating. Of course that was bull and now they hide behind the drought.
PK is one of the only lakes in the state that has the ability to catch huge amounts of water during a drought because it has probably the best watershed in Texas. I will give you that the drought has effect on it as it does every lake out here but you can pull up water data for the Brazos and see that the river has run heavy several times this year and the lake should not be down 15 foot.

Wow, Fort Phantom is only at 32%!

Yes the BRA sells water to Luminant thats pumped into Squaw Creek to offset evaporation. Brazos River flowing "bank to bank" below PK or Granbury? In recent history? No water except the required trickle comes through Glen Rose regardless of the stories of "sending it downstream" unless they have installed a pipeline around my house on the river. Brazos River flowing "bank to bank" into Graham? Now I know that can't happen. This I do know as fact: the rivers were impounded for flood control, water storage/distribution and hydro-electric power...period. I would be manic also if I owned lakefront property on these lakes that were not built so I could have lakefront property especially if I could no longer use it as "lakefront" and my investment was going down the toilet. I understand the sentiment-just not the logic. Regardless how we feel, facts are facts and sometimes we loose focus on the facts. I agree with the statement of "should we view a man-made impoundment as a "natural resource"? Good point! One more fact: Our state needs rain! :-)

Post facts: Our state needs rain and Abilene is a water whore of a city

isn't it there a technology to generate clouds for raining? if there is texas should invest in it.

Cloud seeding? It's snake oil and been a waste of money.