Dry lakes----what can we do?

I am throwing this out there,feel free to modify or snortlaugh. With texas population and industries
growing rapidly .the future does not look good .add in the long drougth and no gulf hurricanes ,bad news.
no new lakes built in 30 years. What about a ground swell petition to the new gov abbott tofast track new water
storage lakes not for recreation ut for the good of the state and the people. also commision a study on the truth aout fracking and water usage. I like 2.00$gas as much as anybody but at what price. Just an idea ,please add to it.

Take shorter showers.

Stop with the landscape watering. period.

It's only going to get worse. With the legislature opening up water transfer from one drainage to another, big cities can go get water from anywhere they want. It's turning into a big water grab and the little and rural areas can't stop it.

Fracing (no K) uses a lot of water, but a very little in the big picture. If it weren't for the long drought, it would never be noticed. I do believe the oil companies should be banned from using potable water from city water supplies. In the past, they always drilled a water well on site instead of hauling in water.

What would that solve?

Ok, but what will it solve?

Golf courses public and private use huge amounts ofwaterbecause they use tiff and other types of grass
not adapted to this area . they used to use common burmuda. but it was not as pretty as on t.v, the planting of trees andshrubs to pretty up the road ways.I don't know if we can afford these niceities any more.more style over substance.many small ways to cut back that would add up.

Tell those people on the coast to quit praying for no hurricanes

Stop watering lawns. That is what is drying up the lakes. Look at the size of the metroplex on the map. There is no way you are going to have full lakes in texas and try to irrigate and area the size of new England in a semi arid climate.

I hear you on that. Abilene is now draining water from Pk. That will stop once we get zebra mussels so their pipe will stop up.

Crazy idea. Why don't we just fill them in? That would bring the water up.

You can build all the storage lakes you want, but if it don't rain, we're just gonna have more mudholes, expensive government booddoggle dams, displaced homeowners, flooded river bottoms, and jetskis.
Quit watering lawns and golf courses.

The pipe dream idea is for the Army Core and other controlling lake authorities to dig out the dry areas to increase water volume when the rain does come in.

That is a pipe dream since that would cost a huge amount of money and where do you get the equipment and operators. Then where do you put the dirt?

I'd wonder where the water is going to come from first.

The TWDB did a ton of research trying to find more good spots to put new lakes. The sad fact is they could only find seven new sites in Texas and they were not excellent. No use building new lakes that would never fill up or would be empty most of the time. The SAD FACT IS WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH WATER. If there is not enough water to fill the existing lakes new lakes probably would not be full either.

The only way I see to have more adequate supply is through desalination(sp). It would be only for drinking water and it is expensive, but water is expensive right now. We need to ask ourselves, which is better, expensive water, or no water. Another year with no rain in the metromess and they will be looking at NO WATER. $5.00 per thousand gallons (or more) may look pretty good.

I don't know how many places use it, but I know some golf courses use recycled sewage water. Fredricksburg does, and our course at Emerald Bay does. It saves lots of money and lots of new water.

I don't see any salvation for fishing lakes in North Texas. The metromess will own all of the water in all of them and has the power to pump them dry as fast as they fill up.

I read 25% of all water used by the average household went down the flush toilet.

Here's a water saver tip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cSfwq5kjEE

As mentioned several times already it is the improper use of water that continues to be at the root of our water problems. Water should be used for growing food, sparse household purposes and in industry where appropriate. But since many influential people are in the water business and active within political circles the cycle of waste and profit taking will continue. Plentiful water makes everything possible and without water nothing lives long.

We might very well live to see thousands of beautiful houses and whole neighborhoods go dry in many parts of the state. Be aware that this is not only a water quantity issue but a water quality issue too. If the water supply is compromised by either of these two threats the end result is the same.

Strong leadership in water conservation efforts is sorely lacking as the battle over ownership and profits has every lawyer in the state drooling over the legal battles to come while we all die of thirst...

Shoot I bet homeowners usage is the number 1 problem. Not just watering lawns. Dishes, clothes, Showers,toilets. Of course it feels better to point the finger at someone else.

Farming in west Texas prolly uses a ton of water even if it comes from a well.

Roughly HALF the CONSUMPTIVE water use in Texas is for golf courses and landscapes in dry climates.

So....

1) Outlaw carpetgrass lawns West of I 45. Xeroscapes only unless grey water is available for irrigation.

2) INSIST that golf courses use grey water and no longer allow them to consume either surface or groundwater that has yet to be used.

3) Go back to pre-2011 water rights where municipalities are the holders of low priority water rights instead of giving them number one priority in order to WASTE our precious water on things like lawns and golf courses. Insist that municipalities enforce water restrictions, cutting off water for all uses except drinking, brushing, flushing and cooking when appropriate (like now).

4) For municipalities near the coast, develop desalination plants for municipal uses (waaay too costly for lawns and golf courses but not for home use where water is charged for).

All of our needs can be met without new reservoirs, without the destruction of more bottomland forests, without having to do anything other than allocate what we have for highest and best uses, rather than squandering it on grass which we cannot eat.

If everyone paid the same price for water Texas would not be as dry as it is. Something is wrong when water can be sold for marginal crop land irrigation at a subsided rate that is 90% less then I have to pay for drinking water. To me it's simple, if you can afford to pay the same price as everyone else, you may do what you want with the water you buy. If you're expecting me to help pay for your water, I want a say in how you use it.

Irrigation is irrigation...I don't care if it's for the golf course or to grow a crop.

Also we have to figure out how to prevent organizations like LCRA from making profits when they release water.

And instead of adding regulation upon regulation about using grey water, how about relaxing those regulations so people would be encouraged to use it to water lawns, flowers and such.

Here's a quote for misinformed city folk...."IF you EAT, you ARE INOLVED in agriculture."

Now if you really, really wanna eat, farmers will havta grow food, and if that water costs the farmer the same I pay for my house ($1.75/1000 gallons) your corn chip bag will cost about $4700.00 and a good piece of steak around $50K. Forget about rice, sugar, or fish.

And sheesh, yep lets let the city slickers water up their lawns, flowers and trees real nice now, and tell them they need to try and eat those things too. I do agree grey water should be easier to utilize. We cannot use water from a fish hatchery to irrigate rice without a permit. It might not have enough pesticide, fertilizer, salt and other pollutants in it to be called agricultural waste water which is legal to reuse.

But to compare irrigating a golf course to irrigating a farm is beyond ridiculous. A typical golf course CONSUMES as much water as 10,000 single family homes (roughly enough for 50,000 people). But the golf club only has around 600 members. So, 600 wealthy business folks and politicians can use the same water as 50,000 regular folks, and nobody says a thing. That same water will irrigate enough crops to provide for well over a million meals. So we can feed millions or we can allow 600 to play once a week, take your pick.

LCRA does get money so do other water companies (Gulf Coast Water Authority, Brazos River Authority, etc.) to maintain reservoirs, channels, canals and pumping stations

As an aquatic biologist, water is my life. I work as a consultant to all manner of aquatic resource interests (including farms and golf courses among many others)) and learn how they use their water.

Basically it boils down to municipalities waste water, farms grow food with water. BUT, there are a lot more city folks than rural ones, and they vote "liberal give away more for me," and do not think nor care about anybody else or the future.

Next day out at the course, try taking lunch directly off the green. Neither tasty nor nutritious.

The Government in place now spent billions on [censored] poor stimulus packages - look some of them up - stupid as [censored] ! Infrastructure projects are the way to fix things - we need the Keystone pipeline and a big water pipe running right down the side of it ! Bring water to Texoma from Alaska and pipe it to all other lakes who need it. This will create jobs and help out the southern water supply. Even if it rained for a month and filled everything up - they would sell it all out to the frackers and we would be in the same position we were in before.

It can get worse.
In California they have neighbors on alert and water police for violations of water restrictions.
People in violation pay huge fines.

We finally have learned that Texas taxpayers building expensive dams out in West Texas does not result in reliable or very useful reservoirs. Hard to swim in sand.

We are never going to get much if any water from out of state.....the Mississippi pipe to Texas dream never will make sense environmentally or financially to anyone but Texans.

The aquifers exist under vast areas of the state, belonging to us all, but are being quickly drained by only a few because some landowners and special individuals are given access to it often for free. They will take years of non-drought years to replenish. .

Only 1 major reservoir is forthcoming where it stands a chance of being filled by rains. Other proposed sites that make sense are off the table because someone inherited a spot of land under it whose family sat on it for a few years and they feel their having that exact spot of creek bottom is more important to them than a reservoir would be to everyone else around them.

This, like watering grass, or irrigating peanut farms in August heat will change when water shortages become severe.

Our opinions differ on several things.
I'm glad we agree on grey water, that could make a difference rather quickly.

I believe I understand your point of view..farmers should receive subsidies because they grow food and that benefits everyone. And farmers are just Mom and Pop trying to make a living from working the fields and feeding America. You believe that even if the land is marginal or impossible to farm without subsidized irrigation,non-farmers should pay 10X or more as much for our water ? Yeah, I disagree.

Your gloom and doom scenario of 50K steaks ignores the fact that the farmers could still get the water they need to grow crops if they drilled wells, which they would do IF they didn't have a sweetheart less then a penny on the dollar deal to buy cheap water. There won't be 50K steaks and 5K corn chips because of market competition. It's like the free market and less government stuff I've heard conservatives wishing for. If no one can make money doing what they do WITHOUT subsidized help, let them figure out something else to do, or a better way to do it.

It really is all about the Benjamins...If they get ultra cheap water riding the city slickers backs, sticking the city slickers with paying for all the improvements like dams and whining about green lawns, they'll keep riding, sticking, and whining. If they have to pay a higher price closer to what the city slickers pay, they'll find another way to keep farming. Real farmers know droughts happen. That's why there is government subsidized crop insurance (spending even more of our money to help farmers keep the profit margins up)

Irrigation is irrigation...If it costs too much too be profitable (rice,corn and the golf course) it will stop.
I pay the big bucks to irrigate my vegetable garden and I don't need a bunch of farmers trying to make rules about when I can and can't water my tomatoes.

Just a bit curious....where did you learn about agriculture?

I am a FARMER and I work in the field of water resource management. There isn't enough space to try and explain things here, but a course in Food and Fiber crops from an agricultural institution of higher learning would help you understand how water, agriculture and politics fits together.

I receive NO SUBSIDIES of any kind whatsoever, well, I do get to purchase some things without paying tax, that's it.

Do you have ANY IDEA how much farmers are paying for water vs. what a municipality pays for that same water? Cities get the water cheap, farmers pay considerably more for the same water a city gets. Maybe long ago water was cheap for farmers. 20 years ago I paid $6/acre-foot for water out of the Brazos, now that same water costs a farmer $212.50 and the farmer gets only "volume" and not "quality" in the water purchased. Many times it may be OK to drink and use for the city but too salty for farming.

My primary point is that municipalities utilize the vast majority of the water they consume on lifestyle issues not even closely associated with eating, drinking, flushing, or cooking. Most of the water is for watering grass.

drill a well say you? I did that.....

http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/pucek.html

It was almost immediately taken by the state under imminent domain so that the people of San Antonio would not have to build a grey water system to recover and reuse their wasted water to water lawns and golf courses. Saved the city slickers a ton of money but put an honest farmer right out of business without anything close to "due process." Nowadays all that grass is irrigated through the CONSUMPTIVE USE of new, fresh, clean, water.

Oh yeah, all those lakes in the highlands? San Antonio contributed NOT ONE CENT for any of that as they believed they had all the water they would ever need for free underground.

what can an honest, hard working, productive farmer say to that? FOR SHAME!

Any other good ideas?

The answer to what happened to the water is something nobody wants to really think about, because part of the solution is unthinkable...

Think about population. 1950 it was approx 2.5 billion, today it is close to 7 billion. Think about all the water that is being contained in those other 5.5 billions of people bodies (human body is approx 60% water, 90% of their weight). This water is contained and anything that leaves must go back in or the person dies.

This basically means that the average person is carrying around 14 gallons of water at any given time. 14 gallons x 5.5 Trillion is 77 Trillion Gallons of water that is no longer running through our lakes and streams. To put this in perspective, NASA (and some other scientists) say that 11 Trillion Gallons is needed just to get California out of the current drought problem (not have extra). Lake Mead's current level contains approximately 4 Trillion gallons of water.
I find it interesting that all of the estimates of water on Earth leave out this "human container".

Just some thoughts to add to the "where is the water?" question.

Are you suggesting we harvest the water from people? LOL. Not sure why you multiplied 14 gallons times 5.5 trillion.

When did we go from billions to trillions of people on Earth?

11,000,000,000,000/325,851=33,757,760.4 acre-feet of water. Sounds like a lot, but not in the context of the size of California.

The water carried in our (and all living thing's) bodies is part of the "water cycle" which we learned about in grade school. Once again, in the context of the entire planet, is just "stored" and will be returned to the cycle on a continuing basis.

Too many people, too much unnecessary irrigation, too little rain. I have never heard anyone mention the SWPPP plans on all new construction projects we see now, or the fact that almost every development requires some sort of retention pond, which naturally, holds water. I don't know how many new neighborhood ponds and lakes that have appeared over the last 20 years, but that is water which never makes it to the rivers and lakes. Maybe just another drop in the bucket, but at this point we have to look at everything.

I haven't watered my yard more than 3 times in the last 2 years. We only do full loads of laundry, no I have coached the Wife and Kids about taking shorter showers. I personally think that most water spent on landscaping is wasted and should be kept to a minimum. We shouldn't ever lift water restrictions, even when the lakes are full. We all need to start thinking differently about water as the population continues to explode here in Texas. As far as Fraccing is concerned, it is a necessary evil for an essential resource, but I think reclaimed water needs to be used as much as possible, and waste should always be kept at a minimum.

Actually that was a typo, it is 77 billion (which does make the other numbers not AS extreme).

As for the "water cycle" we learned about in grade school. Yes it is "stored" and will be returned to the cycle on a continuing basis. However, it is not "available" water. Based on the logic that it is stored and will be returned, so will all the water that is used for irrigation and other things discussed above.

Also, I remember seeing somewhere a couple of years ago that the US uses 45.5 Trillion (I got the first letter correct this time) on irrigation per year. That is for the entire country, so it isn't really that much, especially considering "not in the context of California".

Also, Fishbreeder, please don't take this as me attacking you or being "defensive". I just believe there is a lot more re: water "availability" that what people want to admit or consider. I also don't believe that most of the statistics re: this are accurate and truthful. In reality, the answer to the proposed question is, there is not really anything that we can do based on current technology. THE PROBLEM IS POPULATION. People need water, the more people the more water is needed.

makes better sense....

Where water is scarce, people have learned to use a lot less. Our problem is less population density (although that is an issue) and more unwillingness to conserve by changing lifestyles.

Just by no longer having green grass watered lawns, and golf course we save nearly half. Alternatively, using recycled grey water for such things rather than new water.

Places like Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Antonio, and El Paso could do much better. Yeah them fountains is impressive, but all that evaporation and all the water needed to not only replace, but to keep from becoming too salty, that fountain water is substantial. Not to mention all the golf courses in all those places. Plus, fossil water, like that in much of the desert, is not renewed or replenished on a regular basis.

Then we could go away from flush toilets and into composting, like Northern Europeans do.

Desalination for drinking water along the coast, although costly, its better than no water and is within the realm of what can be done now.

With what we already know and have at our disposal we could do a lot more than we now do.

As to statistical accuracy....we all know that our government is extremely truthful and forthcoming with respect to its citizenry...right?

In the meantime, it does no good to blame farmers for using too much water in the process of producing food. Most farmers I know are extremely frugal and would not use one drop more than they need, as even for them, water is terribly expensive, especially as expressed as a percentage of production expenses.

What we should be concerned with is centralized control of water resources either by the government or industry....T. Boone Pickens anybody?

Since wide scale voluntary water conservation doesn't seem to be forthcoming what will come is a perfect storm of government regulation and economic controls (high prices $$$) that shut the faucet off for everyone but those few who can afford it.. more and more the general population only responds to economic pressures that affect them.. if water costs too much to waste it will be used differently. The solution is pretty simple but it starts with everyone doing their part for the greater good of all... If you really want to worry about something just look at the drought of self sacrifice in today's America.

There's still hope for The Affordable Water Care Act in the next 2 years.

How much would zeros capping save? Does anyone on here realize that every bigger city REQUIRES that businesses not grandfathered have full landscaping with grass and trees and water systems instead of virtually maintenance free and water free zero scalping? One thing everyone could do that lives in a city that requires this huge waste of water and huge expense to the business owners could start going to city hall meetings and get petitions to have these laws changed. Also like some far west cities give a property tax credit to home owners that zero scape to save water.
Trust me this alone would make a huge difference in water usage.

"Xeriscape" but I get the point. Seems the city gets a sure fire sale of high priced, purified water to every business park in it. Good way to extract more money from businesses without having to call it a "tax." Just one example of why we have issues with consumptive use of water, especially in municipalities.

The irrigation I use, and is most common in my county is actually a non-consumptive use as most of the water is returned to the stream it was taken out of or to adjacent streams. I fill out a report and send it in every year. Many years I actually return more water than I took, as I have considerable storage capacity and watershed along with my creek pump and water wells.

The problem is no rain and CHEAP water. For the most part voluntary restrictions don't work because the "Me First" mentality of this country is you should be restricted so I can have more water to use as I please.

Simple solution is RAIN! In the meantime, continue & increase severity of mandatory restrictions which have worked to a certain degree AND/OR increase the price of water as to influence more compliance with the restrictions. The increased fees would be mandated for building new lakes or dredgin up old ones or payin for desalination. This mandated use of additional water cost would be needed or the municipalities would just use the increase as a veiled tax. Again, it will take RAIN to fill the new capacity.

Let's face it folks, water use restrictions are here to stay.

Realistically, desalination would only be effective for drinkin water as it would be way too costly for overall water usage with current technology.

A sad example of the problem is San Antonio. They have never gone further than Stage 1 water conservation which is voluntary conservation measures. They have avoided the more strict measures because they have obtained water from other resources besides the Edwards Aquifer. The other sources are "buying" water from areas away from the aquifer such as underground water from Gonzales County. They are currently planning to get water from close to Caldwell, Texas.

This is the answer:



Here is how it would work:

The Affordable Water Care Act opens the southern border to everyone in Central and South America, and anyone else in the world who can get there... We invite them all to Texas, maybe pay them with some bennies for coming here....you know, free educations, free health care, free housing, just free stuff... its all free, costs no one anything. So, you have millions of people coming into the state bringing in their water... ("the average person is carrying around 14 gallons of water at any given time")... multiply all those 14 gallons times the number of folks coming in... Voila... there is your solution... millions and millions of gallons of new water!!!!

Problem solved.

Reusing gray water just means less is discharged into streams to be caught in a lake downstream. Some gain, but not as much as it would seem.

Most of the cost of municipal water is the treatment and delivery to customer costs. Some more than farmers pay, but not nearly as much as it would seem.

Most of the surface water that is used by farmers is water that is held by senior water right holders. In many cases they helped or sponsored the reservoir that holds the water.

Someone mentioned that groundwater belongs to all of us. Not true. Surface water belongs to the state of Texas, but groundwater belongs to whomever can pump it for a beneficial use.

And btw, landscape water is very significant. Even in areas that are water challenged, like San Antonio, the landscape use is huge.

The firm yield of a reservoir is the amount of water available from that reservoir during a duplicate of the drought of record. Often building additional reservoirs merely reduces the firm yield of another.

Alrighty. We can all try to overachieve when traveling out of state and carry back an extra gallon of water when we come back to TX.

Well, not anymore......I was involved with the research then drilling and operation of the world's largest water well ever. Period. Located 17 miles SW of San Antonio and now plugged, it operated twice for just over a grand total of 6 months.

When the well was drilled, it was done under the doctrine of "Free Capture" which says a person who owns their land and subsurface rights can drill a water well and bring that water to the surface for almost any use they have in mind, it belonged to them. After the well was drilled all that changed.

Nowadays its a mishmash of groundwater districts, state jurisdiction through TCEQ and local authorities, no more "free capture." In many cases it is taxed heavily by such beauracracies so they can have nice offices, big salaries and good benefits while telling people how to live....kinda like being a politician.

Add to that since 2011 surface water is no longer allocated through the doctrines of riparian rights OR the doctrine of prior appropriation. Now it is prioritized during periods of low flow by a statewide watermaster. Municipalities receiving the highest priority, superceding farmer's right of prior appropriation or riparian rights. Even though, as mentioned above by donothin that the farmers financed a lot of the infrastructure now in use.

There is little doubt that grey water re-use is consumptive, and results in lowered stream flows in some cases. However, in others it actually contributes to stream flow and is usually of a higher quality when released from such uses than it was when it was impounded.

It is an issue that will rise to the fore next time it quits raining. One that is complex and needs a lot of forethought to address.

I see a lot of things being considered here for conservation of valuable water. One thing I do not see mentioned is probably one of the biggest water wasters in industry today, commercial/industrial cooling towers. Cooling towers use evaporative cooling to remove heat from water, which is then sent back to a chilled water A/C system, often used in large buildings and manufacturing. The water in a cooling tower is pumped up to the top of a tower where it is allowed to cascade down through the tower while a large fan pulls air across it, cooling it down. I have worked on a lot of these cooling towers over the years, and a moderate (50-100ton) cooling tower can/will be responsible for close to 1,000 gallons a day of evaporation. There are many of them in dallas that are several times that size, too many to list. That doesn't sound like much, until you consider that every high rise in the city uses this method, almost every manufacturing facility, some multi-family residential applications, and the list goes on, and on, and on.

These cooling towers are piped into city water for "make-up" water, to replace what is lost to evaporation. That is a huge consumption of water! So next time you are cheering because Perry brought a couple of new manufacturers to Texas, remember those millions of gallons of water they will be responsible for. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against industry, but they universally get a pass when they shouldn't. We need to be looking at every aspect of water consumption, not just what the individual can do to save a few gallons here and there or the farmer who grows our food. Fair for one should be fair for all.

Do I have a magic solution to this particular issue? No. Just thought I'd give y'all someone else to harp on while you're excoriating the golf courses and homeowners.

I see some farmers have chimed in here....what say you in regards to the rice farmers and water coming from the Colorado river. The last time they had their agricultural water released in 2011, here was the breakdown on water use by the city of Austin vs them. How can you say that people watering their lawns is even close to the problem in our water supply issues? Since the price of rice hasn't gone up a dime since they got water cut off, I'm not buying the food prices going through the roof either. The rice farmers pay a fraction of what the city users do so how are the city users the problem? Now the water has been cutoff since Lake Travis is nearly dry and no boat ramps are usable.

BECAUSE IT'S OVER 1/4 OF THE FRIGGIN WATER!!! We have to start somewhere!

Stop the illegals from coming over and deport the ones that are already here and it will be a huge step in the right direction.

So start with the agricultural releases that are nearly 2/3 of the water. 1/4 of the water is the combine municipal use across the board, not lawn watering or golf course watering. So the water used to water lawns/golf courses is way less. We are already in watering restrictions and can only water once a week, so we already have cutback on the watering of lawns. I find it funny that the city of Austin is about to raise water rates because we used so little water last year they are having a hard time turning a profit. They asked everyone to cut water usage by 20% I believe and since it happened, there isn't enough revenue to cover it. Stop downstream releases that could be called a complete waste of water, that seems to make a huge difference. If you don't believe me look at the numbers since the rice farmers got cutoff. Water usage basically got cut in half when the agricultural customers got cutoff. The numbers don't lie, quit trying to blame "rich" golfers. That is completely false in the case of Austin and the LCRA. The rice farmers got cutoff in 2012, see for yourself how much water was being wasted.




http://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply/Documents/2013-Water-Use-Summary.pdf

tell this to the people in Highland Park where one house uses more water than the city of Fate. They think that just because they can afford it then it is OK. I rarely water my grass. Of course I have 3 sprinklers coming off the septic. Which gives me an idea. Take everyone off city sewers and make them get an aerobic system if they want to water their yard.

if its legal then its ok. Don't blame the people who are within the law. Blame the law makers.

Water golf anyone? Tee boxes on your boat deck, floating balls hit to floating greens? If you see a good school of fish stop and throw a dimpled white chug bug (not sure how we are going to get the sand traps to float, may have to use salvinia traps).

If the average toilet uses 2.5 gallons per flush and there are approximately 27,000,000 people in Texas...
If each person urinated outside once per day, that would save 67,500,000 gallons of water per day!

Are you talking about Ronnie Pucek's catfish farm? Talk about a mess. Wasn't his goal to eventually sell the water back to San Antonio? So they would be taking artesian water out of a sealed underground container and throwing it into the megga boondoggle Applewhite reservoir where it would evaporate from the stagnant mudhole that the Applewhite would have been. San Antonio and others ended up having to fork over 30 million dollars to buy this guy out.

I live on Lake Buchanan and it's 35 feet low and has been low for about six years or so, the bottom line is there's too many people in the world. This old theory of having five kids or more is stupid, get them babies cut. We're out of water here and the people in Africa are out of food, why you ask? All them shows over there shows one mother with ten kids running around that are starving. Have less kids and zera scape your lawn's such as I did and capture any rainwater you can, oh and also [censored] outside when you can.

Nothing

blame the lawmakesrs for taking campaign contributions from these people? You know the folks in HP own every lawmaker in north Texas.

I do it outside all the time. If I go inside and it is just liquid I flush about every 4th time. Of course I am a divorcee. I lived with my brother in Richardson and he would get po'd at me when I did it outside. I tried to explain to him that I was just watering his foundation.

Yep and that well was worth way more than $100 million, they got off cheap through imminent domain and bullying. Ronnie was above board, legal and told everybody what he was going to do before he did it and nobody believed him, so he did. It was only a "mess" after the giverment decided that water belonged to them and not the landowner with mineral rights.

The goal was to produce catfish in a system that grew them faster and cleaner than had ever been done anywhere else previously. The water was offered to the city at a very low price indeed, to fill Applewhite, which never was built. Much cheaper to give Pucek a few dollars after beating him up than to actually plan ahead and do something.

The city of San Antonio has made a string of bad decisions with respect to water for over 100 years.

Plus, when you stop farming, you gonna eat grass off the course?

yep

all water but frac water goes back into the cycle, if you water your lawn it goes back into streams, or aquifers
with overpopulation man its a difficult situation

man
that's genius

It's not being talked about because it doesn't matter, it is insignificant. Lets just take Texas for example. Current population ~ 25 Million. Based on your calculation 14 gallons x 25 Million = 350 Million gallons or 1074 ac-ft. Current existing water supplies in Texas 17 million ac-ft ANNUALLY. Therefore your water held by people is only 0.0063% of the ANNUAL water supply in Texas. The population is expected to double in Texas in 50 years, therefore it would be 0.0126%.

Keep in mind there is not a water shortage on earth. We have 2/3rds of the Earth that is water. The problem is people, agriculture, and industry trying to live and work in arid environments. It just won't work unless you move water from other places or use less.

Data from http://twri.tamu.edu/publications/txh2o/fall-2011/water-for-texas-2012/

Most of it goes to Agricultural, then the energy companies , then the big cities.We need to conserve what we have and figure out a way to turn salt to fresh.

You have this in the wrong order
Cities,agriculture,energy.
Also we know how to turn salt into fresh. Expensive but doable. But this is the future in my opinion.

Not in Central Texas. Agriculture far exceeded city use until the farmers were cut off.

Sorry to beat an old dead horse, but I've been off the site a few weeks due to other concerns in my life. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big proponent of agriculture. I was in the Ag Equipment business for 20 years and know well the need to maintain a healthy ag industry, but I still think what Mr. Pucek was wrong in drilling the well.His one catfish farm was using as much water as 1/4 of the entire city of San Antonio and throwing it up from a natural reserve into the hot Texas sun to evaporate.This was not by any means done with water conservation in mind. Just because it was legal...which it was...doesn't mean it was right. And it only takes one or two people pushing the envelope to screw things up for the rest of the folks. Folks like your average farmers. But that's just my opinion. Lord knows I've been wrong before.

Water in Texas isn't a dead horse yet.....

Yes, roughly 1/4 the city of San Antonio, which includes similar uses to Pucek's......the Riverwalk is kept full and running by wells, the water in the zoo is kept flushed and clean with wells, the water at the slide at SeaWorld is a one pass system using the pressurized well water instead of a pump, all of them basically doing the same thing as Pucek, running water to make money. I don't begrudge them their use, but fail to see his to be any less legitimate than theirs, or the yard owners, or golf courses, or any of the other myriad of businesses that are water intensive.

Actually the water from Pucek's, after passing through the catfish raceways, then the clarification system, went into an old gravel quarry then through the gravel and sands into the river, cleaner than the river water itself. A tiny amount lost to evaporation. Compared to some of the funky stuff coming out of the places mentioned above, his water was clean indeed.

There is no reason the same water could not be used many times, or alternatively as the case was made by of all people, environmental groups, Pucek's water actually contributed to streamflow and ultimately to the amount of water reaching the estuary, also an important use of water.

Then there is the bigger issue of Big Brother and the confiscation of property without due process by governmental authorities, for ANY reason. Imminent domain abuse being particularly rampant ion Texas, then and now.

To pump out ground water in a dryer climate such as San Antonio without recycling it makes no sense. Our nations aquifers water levels are dropping at alarming rates.Pumping out ground water for recreational uses doesn't help to maintain these levels, nor is it a wise decision by local officials.This water should be recycled with a pump system but that would create an additional expense that the merchants benefiting should have to share. This raises the question of who's interest the officials are catering too. Is it the best interest of local residents they have at heart or helping the tourist draw of big business in the city? This leads to even more questions such as are officials taking money to look the other way on this issue?

Indeed why the planned reservoir that was voted down (Applewhite) should have been built, then filled with water from that farm's well and all the others I mentioned above, but new water confiscated from the legitimate owners under imminent domain was a lot cheaper. So the city continues to drain the aquifer for its own purposes, most of which ARE NOT drinking, bathing, brushing, and laundering.

Well I don't get it Fishbreeder. Why don't we just build countless reservoirs and destroy more and more natural bottom land habitat as well as farmland. The vast majority of which will be acquired through...you guessed it...Imminent Domain? Then punch countless big holes in the aquifers and keep all the rivers happily gushing water to the sea? Surely this wouldn't have any effect on our aquifer levels would it? Now as much as I hate big government, I do believe that the right of capture laws were antiquated and no longer sensible in this modern day. And as I stated above, it only took one persons disregard for what should be a natural resource for all to come in and screw it up. That doesn't mean I believe we should limit farmers and industry and homeowners from prudent common sense use of underground water. But it should be done with the knowledge that this resource is limited and should be used wisely for all of the citizens of the state. I can tell you who would have benefited the most from building the Applewhite...a few companies like H. B. Zachary construction, Holt equipment and a few local landowners and developers around the boundaries of the lake. I did a fair amount of business with Holt back then, and I know how all these things played out. The lake would have been a cesspool sitting on sandy loam that would not be able to provide water during dry spells (which was why it was supposedly being built.) Unless of course we opened up the Edwards and filled it up. Of course it was just the beginning of a series of dams and reservoirs that were planned going south towards the coast. All of which would be built on land that was taken (once again) by imminent domain.

Conservation is the key here. Conservation backed up by good science and new technology with the common good always in mind.

Oh I agree that it is not the best to cover up sensitive areas with water, but cities like San Antonio who believe they can just take what they want and go the cheapest, least sustainable route just by taking away from honest hard working people is not the way. what difference the effect if it goes for watering the city's landscapes or producing food for that and other cities to eat? Its not about whether the water will get consumed, rather who consumes it and what it provides in the process.

I say farming is every bit as important as thoroughly watered green spaces in the city, whether homes, golf courses cemeteries or parks. I also say that in the specialized case of Pucek's farm and well, both were possible. Now only one is being done and we buy all our fish from China. Pucek was illegally shut down and the "common good" was served. It did not stop with him, and it has not stopped, with a rush statewide to set up groundwater districts and grab underground water away from business and secure it for municipal use, just as has been done with the surface water.

One day we'll learn we cannot eat grass.

I work every day to try and conserve what little we got left. I also work every day to see that what we do consume is done so sustainably and to best effect. But I do not support the socialistic view of quashing entrepreneurism in favor of central control of all our natural resources.

The USSR was built on "common good."

No, it doesn't take many people squandering a resource to bring the heavy hand of Big Brother down on everyone else. Case in point our fish and wildlife laws. What's the difference between a herd of deer wandering on your property versus water passing through underground (besides the law of course). Do you think you have the right to kill them and do with them as you will? This is a pure Libertarian concept, one that I have a lot of agreement with overall, but I don't believe a completely Libertarian rule of government is workable at this time. There are far too many people out there who have no concept or care for the common good. Like many, I learned all I need to know about the common good in Sunday School.

Anyways, I've said about all I want to on this subject. But I have enjoyed this discussion with you.

OK, I can't figure out how to fix this up all nice...



AGREED!

I left out part....


As I have previously stated, I believe Mr. Pucek brought this on himself...and then everybody else. quoted from above

I agree with this as well, but not perhaps in the same way most see it. I still believe he was within both his rights and on moral high ground in the simple act of drilling the well and putting the water to work. BUT...

He was somewhat his own worst enemy in the way he behaved, across the board. He'd show up in silk shorts and muscleman wife beaters where all his neighbors, ostensibly on the same side he was, were in jeans and coveralls. I told him other folks might identify with his problem better if he were less outrageous.

He responded by getting on his dozer, calling out the news and telling folks on tv, "I'm gonna take the top off this well and drain the aquifer if yall don't leave me alone." Needless to say, this aggravated folks whether they agreed with him or not. Made it difficult for me to face all my family in SA...."You in bed with that NUT?" I'd hear regularly.

I particularly enjoy conversations without folks calling each other blithering idiots, which seems to happen far too often. Your points all all well made and well taken.