Jump to content

2018 Rain Thread

Hollywood

By Hollywood
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

South Austin
South Austin

I'd keep playing.  I don't think the heavy stuff is gonna come down for quite a while.

RamjetFDO
RamjetFDO

Sorry ... just had to read it in this voice:  

NorthLoop
NorthLoop

That's called dusk

phdhorn

phdhorn 6224

Posted
Posted

Update 1 p.m.:

1) Front mostly benign coming through ATX, good soaking showers, maybe up to 1.5"-2" in some spots, but little wind/other severe.  Yay!

2) Worst of it is SW of us around Uvalde across to San Antonio and south, mostly tons and tons of rain, flooding locally, and a few severe cells.  We seem to be escaping that.  

3) ACL/Rapelor game:  Models now trending up, as expected, on rain chances thanks to Pacific Hurricane Sergio, remnants gonna filter NE up to us.  Friday looks ok, Saturday could get rapey (at the game) and rainy, peak Sat. evening into Sun. morning.  Again though this is not a given, but 2X as likely as it was yesterday.  I'll update you on Sergio tomorrow or whatever.

4) Cool weather coming in with this front, but wait until Sunday afternoon - that's the cold shot e'rrybody talkin' bout.  Daytime highs mid 70's maybe, nightime in down to mid-40's west of town, about 50° in town.  That's the first true cold front of the season.  Money on Oct. 14?  You win the Internetz.

Signing off until later this week with forecasts unless conditions warrant...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45513

Posted
Posted

Am I imagining things, or has this been an unusual late summer into early fall?  We haven't really been hit with any crazy rain bombs, but a whole bunch of my kids' soccer practice and various weekend matches in the San Antonio to Temple corridor have been rained out.  (This is my best way to keep track of weather.) 

Seems pretty consistently wet.  Like your Mom.  (Was.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange&White

Orange&White 5516

Posted
Posted

The band this morning/afternoon looks like it moved too fast and it went slightly too far north to get LT up to 670.

A lot of the higher rainfall amounts from this morning actually fell in the Buchanan basin, which I am sure they will be glad to keep right there.

The stream flow in Junction is at 34k cfs right now, but yesterday it peaked at 110k.

IF, and that is a big IF, LCRA doesn't send any of this downstream, I think we'll be lucky to get Travis up to about 666-667 after all of this slowly filters in over the next 3 days. And that is only a few feet below the 671 that they consider "normal" for this time of year.

I'll take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
phdhorn

phdhorn 6224

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Am I imagining things, or has this been an unusual late summer into early fall?  We haven't really been hit with any crazy rain bombs, but a whole bunch of my kids' soccer practice and various weekend matches in the San Antonio to Temple corridor have been rained out.  (This is my best way to keep track of weather.) 

Seems pretty consistently wet.  Like your Mom.  (Was.)

September was much cooler, and much wetter, than normal.  October is slightly cooler, and slightly rainier, than normal.

Average high for October 9:  77°.  Today's high so far:  71°.  Will probably get to about 74°.

Edited by phdhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4065

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Wally Pryor said:

Won't this be 7 straight weekends coming up that we've had rain to one extent or the other?  Want to say it started late August. 

i got curious... Since September 3rd (37 days) , we have had 24 days where it rained; 13 where it did not.

wunderground is your friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24547

Posted
Posted

LT at 665.14 at 10:23pm.

 

That’s nuts. 12 or so feet higher than the last time we went out and the llano river is still reading full up river. LBJ will keep pouring into LT for a few more days. We could be above 681 to start the late spring/early summer.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, troph said:

LT at 665.14 at 10:23pm.

 

That’s nuts. 12 or so feet higher than the last time we went out and the llano river is still reading full up river. LBJ will keep pouring into LT for a few more days. We could be above 681 to start the late spring/early summer.

Thats fucking crazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
texhorn

texhorn 351

Posted
Posted
LT at 665.14 at 10:23pm.
 
That’s nuts. 12 or so feet higher than the last time we went out and the llano river is still reading full up river. LBJ will keep pouring into LT for a few more days. We could be above 681 to start the late spring/early summer.
 
 


The LCRA laughs in your general direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24547

Posted
Posted


The LCRA laughs in your general direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah they are up for limited sunset review I think. Time to redo their charter and grant of authority - hydro-electric power - sending water down stream to make money - needs to be stripped from them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange&White

Orange&White 5516

Posted
Posted

I don't know if y'all have paid attention to the last few years, but LCRA has completely revamped their system to determine how much water is sent to farmers (based on Lake level at predetermined dates throughout the year) and have also added a 90k acre foot storage reservoir downstream to collect runoff from rains below LT and from hydro electric generation flow and save it for farmers and environmental water needs downstream at a later time.

Because of those two things and the fact that the lake has remained pretty full since the drought broke will pretty much ensure that their sunset review will garner them glowing reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24547

Posted
Posted
I don't know if y'all have paid attention to the last few years, but LCRA has completely revamped their system to determine how much water is sent to farmers (based on Lake level at predetermined dates throughout the year) and have also added a 90k acre foot storage reservoir downstream to collect runoff from rains below LT and from hydro electric generation flow and save it for farmers and environmental water needs downstream at a later time.
Because of those two things and the fact that the lake has remained pretty full since the drought broke will pretty much ensure that their sunset review will garner them glowing reviews.

Probably so and yes I’m aware of the new reservoir and the changes to sending water to farmers. However the fact remains when LCRA was formed it was the sole/primary power source for the hill country. That mission was more important than water supplies. Now that’s completely reversed. The right thing to do in this age is to limit the hydro electric power to only an ancillary benefit when water must be sent down stream for river health, for flood control and for requirements to restock farmer water supplies.

That won’t happen because LCRA would then be underwater (no pun intended) on revenue bc selling power is their primary revenue source, not selling water. If their mission is changed, the state would have to fill the budget gaps. Not gonna happen. But it should.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104465

Posted
Posted

Just an FYI, YES, LCRA's moneymaker is selling power.  But hydro is such a tiny part of their portfolio as to be a non-motivator in any of their business decisions.  Seriously, it's something like 2% of their power sales.  Almost all of their power is generated by coal and gas-fired plants.

The reason that folks lose cool Lake Travis water isn't because of demands for hydro.  It's because of demands for downstream water, which were adjudicated via water rights claims DECADES ago, and Texas has a tested scheme as to priorities for water rights.  We may not like it, but the farmers had their claims first, and adjudicated those rights fair and square.  Which is why creating the off-channel reservoir in Wharton was an important move.  There have been some modifications to the system of water rights claims based on modern needs, but it's damned tricky, and it's not done lightly.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange&White

Orange&White 5516

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Just an FYI, YES, LCRA's moneymaker is selling power.  But hydro is such a tiny part of their portfolio as to be a non-motivator in any of their business decisions.  Seriously, it's something like 2% of their power sales.  Almost all of their power is generated by coal and gas-fired plants.

The reason that folks lose cool Lake Travis water isn't because of demands for hydro.  It's because of demands for downstream water, which were adjudicated via water rights claims DECADES ago, and Texas has a tested scheme as to priorities for water rights.  We may not like it, but the farmers had their claims first, and adjudicated those rights fair and square.  Which is why creating the off-channel reservoir in Wharton was an important move.  There have been some modifications to the system of water rights claims based on modern needs, but it's damned tricky, and it's not done lightly.

Wow! This is the most accurate and impartial post on this topic that I have ever seen across HornFans>Shaggy>Surly history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24547

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Just an FYI, YES, LCRA's moneymaker is selling power.  But hydro is such a tiny part of their portfolio as to be a non-motivator in any of their business decisions.  Seriously, it's something like 2% of their power sales.  Almost all of their power is generated by coal and gas-fired plants.

The reason that folks lose cool Lake Travis water isn't because of demands for hydro.  It's because of demands for downstream water, which were adjudicated via water rights claims DECADES ago, and Texas has a tested scheme as to priorities for water rights.  We may not like it, but the farmers had their claims first, and adjudicated those rights fair and square.  Which is why creating the off-channel reservoir in Wharton was an important move.  There have been some modifications to the system of water rights claims based on modern needs, but it's damned tricky, and it's not done lightly.

then I must have mis-read an article.  I'm very aware of the downstream rights and I don't think new demands upstream should replace prior deals downstream without compensation or mitigation - the reservoir in Wharton to me is part of that deal.  and frankly if that isn't enough they should do more for capacity.  I think water releases should be limited to river health and flood control with proper capacity built elsewhere within the LCRA system for farmers.  even if hydro power is 2% it should never be the case that LCRA releases water solely to sell power.  we are way past that point if it's still happening.

Edited by troph
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange&White

Orange&White 5516

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, irishtexan said:

I understand why we have to release water to rice farmers. I question why the fuck we're growing rice in Texas. Are we low on rice? Is there not a better use of our water resources? Like keeping golf courses green, for instance. 

 

Rice is grown in Texas because well over 100 years ago, 1) farmers figured out that they could do it, 2) that there was demand for it, and 3) no one gave a shit about how much water they were using. Once that happened, families spent hundred of thousands of dollars on land and equipment to create their family farms that continue to operate to today and that have been handed down through generations.

The other thing to note is that the vast majority of Texas rice farmers get their water from a source other than the Colorado River.

I get that water is more scarce in Texas now than it was when those farmer started their farms, but that is still not an excuse to take away their family livelihood so some folks can take their jetskis on Lake Travis easier. The farming community never asked for the Highland Lakes to be created. As a matter of fact, most of them opposed it, but worked within in the process to negotiate a legal arrangement that suited the LCRA and their own rights.

The LCRA is not lacking for money. They do just fine. If there is a true lack of water, and the amount used by rice farmers is detrimental to the region, the LCRA always has the legal right to buy out their farms at a price that compensates them fairly.

What I have never understood is the notion that any lack of water is ALWAYS the fault of Rice farmers and never the fault of the thousands of people a month that move to the region and use more water. Why does every solution to solving the issue start with fucking over farmers who negotiated their rights 100 years ago and never involves higher cost to developers who continue to build homes and businesses that use more water?

 

 

Edited by Orange&White
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
crash_davis

crash_davis 23078

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Orange&White said:

 

Rice is grown in Texas because well over 100 years ago, 1) farmers figured out that they could do it, 2) that there was demand for it, and 3) no one gave a shit about how much water they were using. Once that happened, families spent hundred of thousands of dollars on land and equipment to create their family farms that continue to operate to today and that have been handed down through generations.

The other thing to note is that the vast majority of Texas rice farmers get their water from a source other than the Colorado River.

I get that water is more scarce in Texas now than it was when those farmer started their farms, but that is still not an excuse to take away their family livelihood so some folks can take their jetskis on Lake Travis easier. The farming community never asked for the Highland Lakes to be created. As a matter of fact, most of them opposed it, but worked within in the process to negotiate a legal arrangement that suited the LCRA and their own rights.

The LCRA is not lacking for money. They do just fine. If there is a true lack of water, and the amount used by rice farmers is detrimental to the region, the LCRA always has the legal right to buy out their farms at a price that compensates them fairly.

What I have never understood is the notion that any lack of water is ALWAYS the fault of Rice farmers and never the fault of the thousands of people a month that move to the region and use more water. Why does every solution to solving the issue start with fucking over farmers who negotiated their rights 100 years ago and never involves higher cost to developers who continue to build homes and businesses that use more water?

 

 

The same type of argument could be said about coal. Just because it's been done for a 100 year doesn't mean that it still should. Shit changes. Policies and actions should change with it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104465

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

The same type of argument could be said about coal. Just because it's been done for a 100 year doesn't mean that it still should. Shit changes. Policies and actions should change with it.

In simplified terms...they have an adjudicated water right, which is a property interest.

If it is in the public interest to take away that property right, then the public can and should obtain it, as that would be good public policy.  And pay for it.  It happens all the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deej

Deej 76510

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 10/11/2018 at 7:57 AM, troph said:


Yeah they are up for limited sunset review I think. Time to redo their charter and grant of authority - hydro-electric power - sending water down stream to make money - needs to be stripped from them.

Fuckers bent their rules to let someone with ties to a higher up at the LCRA get approval to build an RV park below Buchanan Dam on Inks, in an area FEMA has designated as a floodway. Not a floodzone, but an actual floodway. Good luck the next time they have to open more than three floodgates on Buchanan. Corrupt bastards. 

Edited by Deej
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Judge Roybeanbag

Judge Roybeanbag 11796

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, troph said:

I have no issue with ensuring rice farmers have water. I also think more capacity is needed for increased demands. No one should waste water and that includes LCRA.

That’s an important point.  Austin area utilities lose 7 billion gallons a year in leaks.  To compare the total release per year for farmers is around 30 billion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24547

Posted
Posted
That’s an important point.  Austin area utilities lose 7 billion gallons a year in leaks.  To compare the total release per year for farmers is around 30 billion.  

More capacity for farmers (if Wharton x2 as referenced above won’t supply a whole year), fix the leaks, change landscapes, stay on 1-2 day a week watering schedules, no hydro power releases, no sales to outside buyers (I’m not clear on who has rights), all of it is needed.

Boating is great, the economics of lake Travis only grow every year - but that’s the last of the concerns. When we hit our lows last go round some of the straws were close to being exposed. More have been put in and more will in the future.

There is no doubt the highland lakes will be strained more and more in the coming decades with population and climate change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fluff

fluff 87

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Deej said:

Fuckers bent their rules to let someone with ties to a higher up at the LCRA get approval to build an RV park below Buchanan Dam on Inks, in an area FEMA has designated as a floodway. Not a floodzone, but an actual floodway. Good luck the next time they have to open more than three floodgates on Buchanan. Corrupt bastards. 

Yea, there is no FEMA floodway there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fluff

fluff 87

Posted
Posted

There is already an RV park there. I think I could make an argument that since you have the LCRA warning system to let you know when the gates will be opened, and there is no debris coming down, you are much safer there than multitudes of places along the highland lakes and Blanco, Llano and Pedernales Rivers that are subject to flash floods...Like the one just this last week on the Llano.

LCRA notifies you they will be opening gates in a few hours, you pack up and are long gone...I would much rather have that situation than a flash flood that you don’t know is coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...