Exhibit F.3 Written comments received during revision

Transcription

Exhibit F.3
Written comments received during revision process
Draft Water Management Plan Revision Public Comments
Public comments following January 2012 draft
Draft Water Management Plan Revision Public Comments
WMP Revision Advisory Committee Members and Alternates
 Agriculture Interest
 Environmental Interest
 Firm Customer Interest
 Lake Interest
Page 3
Page 3
Page 18
Page 31
Page 37
Elected Officials
Page 40
Remaining Public Comments
Page 49
Page 2 of 250
Draft Water Management Plan Revision Comments
Advisory Committee -Agriculture Interest
From: Haskel Simon [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:32 PM
To: WMP
Cc: Gail Janssen
Subject: Fw: Comments on LCRA WMP Revision
Well, I'll try again.
Thanx, Haskell
COMMENTS ON THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION
My comments are based on the version of the proposed revisions that has been
provided. It is my understanding that discussions are still ongoing that could result in
changes. As a general statement the tone and content of the proposed revisions are a
major departure from previous Water Management Plans (WMP) developed since
1988. The emphasis is on reducing water supplies for interruptible uses in favor of
firm water considerations. It is unfortunate that this approach negates the original
intent of having a Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) that was mandated to
provide flood control and water for conservation which was to provide water supplies
for the lower basin agricultural needs.
I am attaching a copy of my “Position Paper” which specified my concerns and
objections to the proposed language in the WMP. I do not see that those concerns
have been addressed in the proposed revision. In addition the extraordinary measures
given to the Board of Directors (BOD) to circumvent the primary provisions
governing allocations of interruptible water supplies are not acceptable in that it leaves
open to subjective decisions that can be devastating to the interruptible customers. It
is implied that the so called “Wet/Dry” language was predicated on the previously
approved wording used in the Emergency Provisions that had been agreed to in the
extraordinary consensus agreement. It was clearly stated that those provisions would
not be incorporated in the future revisions of the Water Management Plan. The
current wording clearly is in violation of that commitment.
In addition the provision for strikeback regarding the change from use of Interim
Demands to the 2020 Demands was and is objectionable since data indicates that it
could result in a “knee jerk” type of action penalizing the interruptible customers
Page 3 of 250
unnecessarily without having any significant impact on resulting water storage
quantities.
Also introduced were limitations on availability of Run-of-River (ROR) water supplies
for the permitted downstream uses. This again is a new concept not previously seen.
The provision for limiting water supplies even when the lakes are full is certainly
unreasonable and unnecessary.
References to giving the BOD authority almost at any time to curtail or cut off
interruptible water supplies are arbitrary and capricious and can only result in non
objective decisions that will be devastating to the interests and economy in the lower
basin.
From: Haskel Simon [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 4:24 PM
To: Tom Hegemier
Cc: Gail Janssen
Subject: Fw: Position Paper LCRAWMPRV 07082011
Tom, thank you for your question on my oversight on omitting the "Position Paper" with my comments on
the WMP Revisions. Attached are additional comments for my original submission.
Thanx, Haskell
Additional Comments on the Water Management Plan Revision
Haskell L. Simon
Friday, February 10, 2012, 15:44:55
In addition to my concerns and objections to the submitted
revisions I have offered reasonable alternatives that would not adversely
affect future water plans, but would provide temporary protection for the
GCD customers while new water supplies could be developed. See
the presentation of my "Position Paper".
Highlights include:
The devastating impacts on the irrigation customers and indeed on the
overall economy in the lower basin
 The demise of the one hundred and ten (110) year old rice
industry.
 The imperative need to move ahead immediately with
construction of off-channel reservoirs.
 The Position Paper requested adoption of the “Interim
Demands” modeling in lieu of the “2020 Demands”.
Page 4 of 250
 Utilize Adaptive Management Practices on an ongoing basis
not just at the initiation phase of the WMP Revisions.
 During the Revision Process, some significant changes to the
WMP (concessions) were approved by the interruptible
customer interests, even though they were of questionable
benefit to these interests.
 Historically, interruptible water interests were always
recognized as having legitimate access to waters of the
Colorado and total cut off was never considered.
 The Water Management Plan has always recognized the
"Promises" and "Commitments” made to the rice farmers.
 Current proposals totally ignore this historical commitment.
 Other beneficial collateral effects will be adversely impacted.
 Loss of migratory waterfowl winter habitant will adversely affect
the future of migratory birds.
 Water quality improvement because of water coursing through
rice fields is ignored.
At the beginning of the Revision Process, we were requested to
fully represent our interests, but with civility and respect of other
viewpoints. I have attempted to do this during the past year of
deliberations.
Understanding the concerns of others was certainly on my
Agenda, we listened and learned and were agreeable to those
provisions which favored the Firm Water Interests. But I simply
cannot agree with provisions that project the possible demise of our
rice industry.
In the interest of fairness and equity to all of your constituents,
please consider the proposals in my previously submitted “Position
Statement”.
To My Fellow Members on the LCRA WMP Revision Committee
Respectfully Submitted by Haskell L. Simon July 12, 2011
Since I believe that I am the only member of the WMPRC to have displayed a "Red Card" on any issue, I
am offering the following as an explanation and also a proposal to be considered that will address my
concerned objections.
1. Specifically, I have objected to the adoption of Model Run #85A. The WAM Scenario results for #85A,
as shown on the printouts, indicate a substantial reduction in water available to the Gulf Coast Irrigation
Division (GCD) during Drought of Record (DOR) conditions and even more devastating is the reduction in
acres available to be irrigated. If indeed this scenario is adopted, it would likely result in there being no
future for rice production in the GCD (essentially Matagorda County). This would obviously be devastating
to the 110 year old industry and to the county's economy. Numerous meetings with our GCD Farmers
Page 5 of 250
Advisory Committee and public officials have been held to present the data as it was developed by the
WMPRC. The opinions expressed were unanimous that this result would be intolerable.
Early sessions of the WMPRC indicated a spirit of wanting to recognize the concerns of all of the
interests, recognize the challenges of accommodating greater demands from a finite water supply and the
prospect of "sharing the suffering". Most decisions made to date favor protection of Firm Water interests
while reducing water supplies for Interruptible demands especially under DOR projections. And as it was
explained to the WMPRC, this was seemed appropriate. But there must be limits to the level of reduction.
To reduce or eliminate water supplies to the extent of destruction of a whole segment of an economy,
should not be tolerated. Is this what the Adjudication Findings wanted to achieve?
The conditions as indicated by utilizing the "Interim" demands as represented by Run #85A_I were
deemed be acceptable at the time that they were presented. However with the recent proposals regarding
redefining "Open Supply" and the "Shift Mechanism" we now don't have a good indication of their impact
on the on the results of #85A_I.
I am not aware of any proposals to alleviate the extreme consequences to the GCD Irrigation customers
projected by use of #85A. So yes, if no acceptable relief is offered, at this time we certainly cannot agree
to accept Run #85A for the WMP Revision.
2. It has been universally recognized that the ultimate solution for our Basin's water needs will have to
incorporate conservation and the construction of off-channel reservoirs. This would provide relief for the
projected 2020 short fall. Initial steps to address this issue have been taken by the approval of the LCRA
Water Supply Resource Plan-Agriculture. Immediate Priority should now be given to financing the
implementation of the elements of the Plan. If actions are begun now, with resources currently available,
the new developments could be in place in time to address the needs that may be indicated for the future
development of the 2020 WMP.
With this in place, water needs based on the Interim Demands may meet the needs until the new
supplies become available. Adopting this model now will act as a "Bridge" that will offer survival resources
until the new Plan is formulated.
3.With this approach there is no need to adopt any thing other then Plan revisions based on the Interim
Demands. This would also render consideration of the "Open Supply" and "Shift Mechanism"
unnecessary at this time. If urgency for completion is paramount, I respectively recommend that we
proceed to finality with a simplified plan based on Interim Demands only.
Thanx, Haskell
Page 6 of 250
From: Ronald Gertson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:26 PM
To: WMP
Cc: Edmond R McCarthy; Steve Balas (External); John Dickerson (External); J. Scott Arbuckle (External)
Subject: Official Comments on draft WMP
To whom it may concern,
Attached are the official comments of the Colorado Water Issues Committee of the Texas Rice Producers
Legislative Group in regard to the January 23, 2012 draft proposed revisions to the LCRA’s Water
Management Plan.
Ronald Gertson, Chair CWIC
[email protected]
979-758-4670
Comments on Draft Proposed Revisions to the LCRA WMP
Provided by the Colorado Water Issues Committee
of the Texas Rice Producers Legislative Group
The Colorado Water Issues Committee (CWIC) of the Texas Rice Producers Legislative Group appreciates
the opportunity to offer comments for improvement of the LCRA’s Jan. 23, 2012 draft of the “Lakes
Buchanan and Travis Water Management Plan and Drought Contingency Plans”. Our comments assume
that the changes agreed to in the Board-directed caucus of January 31, 2012 will be incorporated into
the plan. CWIC has not seen these changes in writing and wishes to reserve the opportunity for
comment on those changes when they become publicly available. Each comment included here is
followed by an explanation of the concern and a recommendation for addressing the concern.
1. History of the irrigation districts and rice production missing
Explanation:
It is valuable for both casual readers of the plan and those charged with its
implementation to understand the history of how we got where we are today. Rice
production both predates the LCRA and served as one of the motivations for its creation.
All previous iterations of the plan have included two sections that are absent from this
plan. Those sections have been titled “Historic Claims to the Waters of the Colorado”
and “Concerns of the Rice Producers”. They occur beginning on page 12 of the 1990
DMP; page 50 of the 1993 WMP; page 56 of the 1999 WMP; and page 4-7 of the 2010
WMP. Likewise valuable information regarding the other interest groups is at risk of
being lost due to the complete elimination of Chapter 4 section B of the 2010 WMP.
Recommendations:
Insert an updated version of Chapter 4 section B of the 2010 WMP into Chapter 2 of the
new WMP as section 2.2 and renumber succeeding sections accordingly.
2. Additional Water Supply Development not mentioned
Explanation:
Page 7 of 250
The stakeholder involvement process was often dominated by discussion from the
stakeholders regarding the need for additional water supply development and demand
reduction activities necessary to avoid the doom foretold by this new revision of the
WMP. While staff repeatedly reminded the group that such developments fell outside the
purview of the group’s purpose, stakeholders maintained that it is necessary that this plan
mention that need in such a way as to heighten people’s awareness and hasten actions to
fill the need. LCRA’s Stewardship Role with respect to the valuable water rights it
controls within the Basin, together with its management of its constitutional and
statutorily mandated duties to provide for the protection, presentation and development of
these water resources within its jurisdiction, triggers the Authority’s duty to pursue such
development.
Recommendations:
Insert the following on page ES-2 at the end of section A. BACKGROUND:
It is important to note that, absent the addition of new water supplies or the
adoption of major water conservation strategies outside the purview of this
plan, modeling efforts demonstrate a significant probability of negative
consequences for many of the Basin’s water users resulting from reduced or
no water availability during major droughts.
And on page 4-2 between the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of section 4.1 INTRODUCTION
insert:
While not part of this plan, it may be of note to readers that the LCRA Board of
Directors in January, 2012 set as a major goal to implement projects within the
next five years to expand its water supply by at least 100,000 acre-feet. In the
event this goal leads to increases in water supply or decreases in water demands it
is anticipated that alterations to curtailment procedures would then occur that
could reduce the negative impact of current curtailment procedures.
And on page 4-3 change the 2nd full paragraph as follows:
As discussed in Chapter 2, by 2020, demands of LCRA’s firm water customers
are projected to increase by approximately 48 percent from the projected year
2010 demand values used in the 2010 WMP. Meeting those increased demands
from lakes Buchanan and Travis can only be achieved by decreasing the amount
of interruptible stored water provided under the 2010 WMP or by adding water
supplies not currently identified by this plan.
3. Align references to the two rice crops with proper agronomic nomenclature
Explanation:
Casual readers and observers often mistake the terms “first” and “second” crop to
indicate that there are two different crops of rice planted during one growing season. The
proper agronomic terms to use are “main” and “ratoon”.
Page 8 of 250
Recommendations:
We recommend changing all references to “first crop” to “main crop” and all references
to “second crop” to “ratoon crop”. In many cases this will require the addition of the
article “the” prior to the reference as well. We recommend this nomenclature be adopted
throughout the WMP and in all future documents. The Glossary in subchapter G of the
Executive Summary should be amended to reflect these changes and add proper
definitions for “Main Crop” and Ratoon Crop.”
4. Irrigators did not agree to curtailment of the ratoon crop outside of a curtailment
period
Explanation:
The curtailment of the ratoon crop at lake levels that do not indicate the need for
curtailment was not anticipated or discussed in the stakeholder process. Sections 4.3.2.2.
and 4.3.2.3. include conditions that would reduce ratoon crop acreage even when there is
no ratoon crop curtailment being indicated by the established curtailment curves. There
is no indication in the modeling accomplished for the preparation of this plan that
curtailment of the ratoon crop when storage levels are above the agreed ratoon crop
trigger levels is necessary to accomplish the goals of the WMP. To further complicate
matters, water delivery within each operation overlaps for the main and ratoon crops,
making the measurement of the main crop separate from the ratoon crop during the
irrigation season virtually impossible.
Recommendations:
There are numerous references in the Executive Summary and the plan itself that must be
adjusted to correct this error. Below are the references we were able to identify along
with the suggested corrections
Page ES-2, bullet 4:

There will be an annual cap on the total amount of interruptible stored water
available for contracting in any given calendar year. LCRA will use the annual
cap in determining contracted main crop acres and in curtailment years will adjust
the amount of interruptible stored water available for the ratoon crop to stay
within the annual cap;
Page ES-7, annual limit on interruptible stored water, 1st paragraph:
Under this WMP, the amount of interruptible stored water made available for
diversions in any given year to the four downstream irrigation operations will be
limited even when storage levels in lakes Buchanan and Travis are relatively high
or near full. On an annual basis, main crop contracted irrigation acreage will be
adjusted to target a use of no more than 273,500 acre-feet per year of interruptible
stored water will be available for diversion for first and second the main and
ratoon crops during the interim demand phase, and no more than 249,000 acrefeet per year of interruptible stored water would be available for diversion during
Page 9 of 250
the 2020 demand phase. When the applicable ratoon crop curtailment curve
indicates the need for curtailment, wWater available for contracting for second the
ratoon crop water will be limited as necessary to both stay within the annual cap
and abide by the applicable curtailment curve.
Page 4-7, 4.3.2.2. Annual limit for the supply of interruptible stored water:
Under this WMP, the amount of interruptible stored water made available for
diversions in any given year to the four downstream irrigation operations will be
limited even when storage levels in lakes Buchanan and Travis are relatively high
or near full. On an annual basis, main crop contracted irrigation acreage will be
adjusted to target a use of no more than 273,500 acre-feet per year of interruptible
stored water will be available for diversion for first and second the main and
ratoon crops during the interim demand phase, and no more than 249,000 acrefeet per year of interruptible stored water would be available for diversion during
the 2020 demand phase.
The annual supply limit shall be used to adjust the amount of water that may be
made available to an individual irrigation operation in second the ratoon crop if
all of the following conditions exist:



The use of interruptible stored water by an individual irrigation
operation exceeded (or is projected to exceed) its allocation for first
the main crop determined under Section 4.3.3; and
The total use (or projected use) by all four irrigation operations in first
the main crop, plus the total amount of interruptible stored water that
would be made available for second the ratoon crop under Section
4.3.2.3, would exceed the annual limit described above.; and
The then applicable curtailment curve indicates a need for curtailment
of the ratoon crop.
Under these conditions, the adjustment shall be limited to the amount necessary to
stay within the annual limit and the constraints of the then applicable curtailment
curve.
The annual limit will be used to determine the water available during the
contracting process. However, notwithstanding any adjustments made to water
available for contracting during second the ratoon crop, actual use could exceed
the annual limit if necessary to complete a crop.
5. Water not used by the main crop must be available to the ratoon crop when there is
no curtailment in affect
Explanation:
It appears from procedures laid out on page 4-8 under section 4.3.2.3. that each crop has
its own capped use amount, and that water unused under the main crop cap is not
Page 10 of 250
available for addition to the ratoon crop specified amount. This procedure removes a
major conservation incentive for irrigators by removing their ability to use water they
conserved on their main crop for irrigation of their ratoon crops. Here again there seems
to be no sound argument for this water to not be made available. This language also
ignores the language in Comment 2. above regarding both the need for the plan to include
language regarding the development of additional water supplies and the Board’s January
2012 commitment to develop at least an additional 100,000 ac-ft per annum of water
supplies.
Recommendations:
Add the following in section 4.3.2.3. at the bottom of page 4-8 and after the bulleted
section dealing with main and ratoon crop availability:
Notwithstanding the above limitations, any unused quantity of interruptible water
made available for the main crop and not used in the main crop will be made
available for addition to the stated ratoon crop availability except that the total
availability for the ratoon crop will not be allowed to exceed the availability as
determined by the then applicable curtailment curve.
Analysis and development of downstream, lower basin, storage facilities will
enhance the ability to conserve water and maximize the beneficial use of releases
from storage that can be captured for release for such use as irrigation of ratoon
crops.
6. Effective date of WMP must not have mid-crop impacts
Explanation:
It appears that the effective date of this WMP revision may have the potential for coming
in the middle of a crop season. We believe this should be noted and accounted for with
language that would indicate that the provisions of the new plan would not impact
interruptible contracts in place at the time of the effective date.
Recommendations:
Change page ES-6, Separate curtailment procedures, 2nd paragraph as follows:
The interim demand phase curtailment procedures are in effect immediately upon
the effective date of this WMP revision, but shall not be implemented to avoid
negative impact on the delivery of interruptible water made available by contract
during that current crop season . The LCRA Board will determine whether to shift
to the second set of curtailment procedures, the 2020 curtailment procedures, after
opportunity for public comment and in accordance with specific criteria. The shift
to 2020 curtailment procedures would be effective for the next calendar year if the
LCRA Board finds that certain defined criteria (based on a combination of actual
and projected demands or other factors) are met. These criteria are more fully
described in Section 4.2 (Process for Determining Applicable Curtailment
Procedures).
Page 11 of 250
7. On-farm duty for calculating irrigable acreage
Explanation:
On-farm water duty is a new concept in this plan and is being used to determine the
quantity of acres to be irrigated in a given crop season. As such it is a very important
number and has the capacity to encourage considerable conservation on the part of
individual producers. However, the use of the 2nd highest farm duty in the last five years
as the divisor for determining allowable crop season acreage is counterproductive as it
does not enable producers to benefit from conservation related reductions in that number
until the two highest years have passed out of the five-year range of history being used
here. A more appropriate and still conservative approach and the one we recommend is
to use a five-year rolling average.
Recommendations:
Change the wording of the last paragraph on page 4-12 of section 4.3.6. as follows:
On-farm duty is a measure of the amount of water used to irrigate an acre of land
(in acre-feet/acre) measured at the point of delivery. On-farm duty varies by type
of crop, weather conditions and for each of the operations. LCRA will maintain
records of water use by field on an annual basis. For purposes of calculating
irrigable acreage, LCRA will use the second highest five-year rolling average onfarm water duty by crop category over the last five years within each irrigation
operation.
8. Dry case exception over-reaches stakeholder agreement on same
Explanation:
The dry case exception that the stakeholders worked diligently on through the holiday
season at the Board’s direction was designed to closely mimic the TCEQ emergency
order now in place. It was not anticipated or discussed that such an emergency decree by
the Board would be accomplished mid-year to impact the ratoon crop. The Jan. 23 draft
specifies a ratoon crop finding opportunity in addition to the intended and agreed-to main
crop finding. We believe such an emergency departure from the plan’s specified
curtailment procedures should occur only in the time frame just prior to the main crop,
and we reviewed and commented on all materials applicable to this “dry case scenario”
with the understanding that this is how it would be utilized in the plan.
The language beginning in the middle of page 4-15 should be changed as follows and
renumbered accordingly:
If the Board makes a finding that the Criteria for Potentially Deviating from the
Standard Curtailment Procedures have been met, the Board may take action to
deviate from such procedures and establish “Modified Curtailment Levels and
Procedures” in accordance with the following provisions.
Page 12 of 250
1. For first main crop, the Board finding regarding the potential to deviate from
the Standard Curtailment Procedures, and any action to establish Modified
Curtailment Levels and Procedures for making water available shall occur no
earlier than at the October Board meeting and no later than at the February
Board meeting.
2. For second crop, the Board finding regarding the potential to deviate from the
Standard Curtailment Procedures, and any action to establish Modified
Curtailment Levels and Procedures for making water available shall occur no
earlier than at the February Board meeting and no later than at the June Board
meeting.
3. If the Board acts to establish Modified Curtailment Levels and Procedures:
a. The Modified Curtailment Levels and Procedures shall make no more
interruptible stored and run of river water available for use in the
downstream irrigation operations than would be made available under
the applicable Standard Curtailment Procedures;
b. The Modified Curtailment Levels and Procedures may rely on
combined storage in lakes Buchanan and Travis on a date no earlier
than March 1 for purposes of determining the amount of interruptible
stored and run of river water to be made available for first the main
crop. and a date no earlier than August 1 for purposes of determining
the amount of interruptible stored and run of river water to be made
available for second crop;
c. The Modified Curtailment Levels and Procedures shall include
provisions for promptly reinstating the applicable Standard
Curtailment Procedures or for responding to improved conditions;
d. Modified Curtailment Levels and Procedures shall only be in effect for
the immediate upcoming crop season (first or second) after the Criteria
are determined to be met. If the Board finds that criteria specified
above for deviating from the curtailment procedures in Section 4.3
also are met prior to any subsequent crop season, the Board may take
action at that time to deviate from the Standard Criteria and
Procedures and establish Modified Curtailment Levels and Procedures
for that subsequent crop season in accordance with this Section 4.4.1.
9. Four irrigation operations are being significantly impacted to enhance protection
for Lake/River Recreation and Economic Interests
Explanation:
In Section 2.6 at page 2-11, the statement is made that “Under this WMP, the supply of
interruptible water outside of the four downstream irrigation operations will be further limited
as discussed in Chapter 4.” There is no statement about the enhanced impacts on the supply of
interruptible water to the four downstream irrigation operations for the protection of river and
lake economic and environmental interests.
Recommendations:
Modify the last sentence at the end of the last paragraph in section 2.6 of page 2-11, to read as
follows:
Page 13 of 250
Under this WMP, the supply of interruptible water both (i) to the four downstream
irrigation operations, and (ii) outside of the four downstream irrigation operations will
be further limited as discussed in Chapter 4.
10. The WMP needs to be more transparent about the use and role of return flows in
meeting firm and interruptible demands.
Explanation:
The WMP at pages ES-8 and 3-2 makes reference to the treatment and use of return flows
discharged by LCRA Customers into the Basin. The WMP, however, does not elaborate
on the volume of return flows available to LCRA, particularly below the Highland Lakes,
or how those waters are used to meet the needs of LCRA’s firm and interruptible
customers– if at all.
Recommendations:
In the Executive Summary it would be beneficial and useful to the WMP reader to
describe each of the water sources available to LCRA. This description would include an
overview of each of LCRA’s separate water rights and what each authorizes, a
description of each of LCRA’s reservoirs and an overview of each of their respective
contributions to the LCRA water supply inventory, e.g., storage and flood capacity,
diversion rights, including specification of firm yield and any run-of-river available yield,
and finally, LCRA’s right of reuse together with any bed and banks authorizations. The
overview descriptions contemplated here include specific authorized volumes which, for
example, are not shown on Table 3-1 on page 3-3, which provides a description of model
assumptions.
Additionally, the description of the three LCRA variations on the TCEQ WAM needs to
be more transparent and user friendly. Specifically, in addition to providing the
“Technical Papers” describing the “assumptions” used by LCRA to develop the three
hybrid models, LCRA should make the actual models available to stakeholders.
Finally, the WMP should provide detailed explanations of the limitations and/or impacts
on water availability that result from LCRA’s (i) settlement agreement on the ownership
and use of return flows with the City of Austin, (ii) settlement agreement related to the
provision of water to the South Texas Nuclear Project, and (iii) the subordination of
LCRA water rights to upstream interests pursuant to so-called “no call agreements” (page
3-3) that the Region F Water Plan relies upon to provide the majority of the water needed
to meet its projected demands through at least the year 2060.
11. At page 4-3, the WMP erroneously states that the only way LCRA can meet the
projected 48 percent increase of LCRA’s firm water customers in 2020 is “by
decreasing the amount of interruptible stored water provided under the 2010
WMP.”
Page 14 of 250
Explanation:
This statement ignores at least two alternative management strategies that LCRA can and
should explore:
i.
Cap increases in contracts for new or additional firm demands of current
contracted firm yield commitments until additional supplies can be
developed; and
ii.
Develop additional water supplies to meet the needs of both LCRA’s
anticipated increase in demands of firm customers and LCRA’s current
level of demands (which LCRA predicts will be decreasing) level of
interruptible demands.
Recommendation:
The WMP should include an appendix which identifies the following as of the date of the WMP:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
LCRA’s total contracted firm demand;
LCRA’s current annual demand included in the total in subparagraph (i)
above; and
LCRA’s ultimate annual demand included in the total in subparagraph (i)
above.
LCRA should consider curtailing new firm customers, or increases above existing contracted
amounts for existing firm customers pending development of new water sources or water
supply and storage facilities to enhance the firm yield capability of LCRA’s water supply
inventory. Increasing LCRA’s available firm yield capability will allow LCRA to be both more
adaptive and responsive to the unpredictability of Texas’ meteorological conditions and the
water supply demands of both its firm and interruptible demand customers.
LCRA needs to relieve the existing demands upon the yield of Lakes Buchanan and
Travis by the development of reliable downstream supplies. This can be accomplished in
a significant manner through the development of storage facilities to capture LCRA’s
run-or-river water rights as well as storm events.
12. Criteria for termination of an event declared to be “a Drought Worse than [the]
Drought of Record” need to be established.
Explanation:
Section 4.3.2.4 (Page 4-10) allows LCRA to cease the delivery of interruptible water from storage
immediately upon declaration of a Drought Worse than [the] Drought of Record and continue to
withhold the delivery of interruptible water from all four downstream irrigation operations
“until the declaration is cancelled.” There are no criteria or triggers for “cancellation” of the
declaration.
Recommendation:
Criteria for determining the end of conditions constituting a “Drought Worse than [the]
Drought of Record” should be articulated and incorporated into the WPM so that the
delivery of interruptible water from storage can be restored, even if in a curtailed format.
Technical Paper A-6 Section 3.0 (page 5 of 6) entitled “Declaration and Cancellation”
contains only an indefinite statement related to the determination of cancellation of such
a declaration.
Page 15 of 250
13. Chapter 6: The Next Frontier, and Necessary Prudent Step in Water Management
of the Lower Colorado Basin is not Planning, but Development.
Explanation:
LCRA’s recent Water Management Plans, including the present draft plan, have focused
on water conservation and water reallocation to achieve balance of water demands within
the basin. Little or no attention has been paid to the glaring need to develop (i) additional
water supplies (surface and/or groundwater sources) , or (ii) enhance/maximize existing
run-of-the-river (non-firm) water rights through the construction of new or expanded
storage infrastructure. Whether failed or frustrated, the LCRA-SAWS project identified
water infrastructure and additional supply needs sources necessary for the future demands
of the Lower Colorado Basin to be met. If LCRA continues to rely upon conservation
and water reallocation from agriculture interests to firm contract customers LCRA will
only be attempting to save itself rich – a strategy economists long ago identified as
doomed to failure. Finally, continued reallocation of available existing water supplies
away from agricultural interests will not only extinguish agriculture in the lower basin in
the near term, it will spell disaster for the thirsty growing firm contract customers of
LCRA. In addition to being one of the main reasons for LCRA’s existence and
longevity, agriculture, particular rice production, is the LCRA equivalent of the canary in
the coal mine. If the canary is not healthy, disaster in the mine eminent. Planning for
and implementation of strategies to develop new and/or enhance existing water supplies
within the Lower Colorado River Basin must be an integral component of any Water
Management Plan adopted by the LCRA if LCRA is to fulfill its role in assuring the
success of both the State Water Plan and meeting the needs of the entire Lower Colorado
Basin.
Recommendations:
The Board should direct staff to add a chapter – Chapter 6-Water Development – to the WMP.
In the new Chapter 6 Staff should tackle the critical issue of development of additional water
supplies. These new supplies should explore opportunities for new water rights – surface
and/or groundwater, as well as enhancement of existing non-firm water supplies. The
LCRA/SAWS project plan provides a road map for identification of potential water supplies.
Chapter 6 should review, update and prioritize the opportunities to develop additional water
supplies in the near future. Staff should additionally identify opportunities for other water
supply projects as well as detailed “short-fuse” timetable for Staff to report back to the Board
with recommendations for specific projects leading to bringing new water supply options on-line
in 5, 10, 15 20 and 25 year cycles. The longer time periods obviously will contemplate projects
capable of delivering substantially larger volumes of water capable of meeting the Basins longerterm water supply demands. In addition to identification of projects, Staff should include both
detailed costs estimates for the projects, a list of requisite permitting steps to commence
construction of the projects, together with potential funding mechanisms to pay for the
projects. Staff already has a head start on these tasks. During the first quarter of 2010 Staff
conducted community workshops in Austin, Burnet, and El Campo to solicit input from
stakeholders both on potential projects and funding mechanisms. Upon completion of the
Chapter, implementation of the Chapter needs to become LCRA’s top priority.
Page 16 of 250
CWIC understands that authoring this new Chapter will be a new frontier for LCRA.
Given the current dire circumstances brought on by the drought, and the reality that we
cannot continue to manage our existing and projected water supply shortages by
reallocation of agricultural water supplies to firm municipal/industrial customers,
however, it is time to tackle this issue. To this end CWIC commits to work with the
Board and LCRA’s staff to develop the Chapter and thereafter to implement it.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The journey to this point in the WMP revision process has been a long and arduous one. It has
been extremely challenging for the irrigation interests to both represent their interests and
succumb to seemingly unavoidable concessions during what has been handled as a consensusbased stakeholder process. In representing irrigation interests with these comments on the
draft WMP, CWIC wishes to remind the LCRA and TCEQ that the consensus or near-consensus of
stakeholders on any one or more items does not relieve and should not in any way supplant the
LCRA’s legal obligations to its firm and interruptible customers under all applicable statutes,
court orders and contracts.
Furthermore, any products from the stakeholder process are not to be construed by LCRA or
TCEQ as indication from interruptible customers of any release of LCRA’s responsibility to abide
by both the letter and the spirit of the 1988 adjudication order setting forth LCRA’s
responsibility for making water not used or needed for the protection of its firm customers
available to its interruptible customers. Many of our comments directly address issues in the
Jan. 23rd draft that exceed the letter and spirit of that order and unjustly reduce interruptible
water availability beyond what is justified for the protection of firm water customers. We urge
that these issues be properly addressed prior to LCRA’s adoption of the plan.
Submitted by the Colorado Water Issues Committee of the Texas Rice Producers Legislative
Group (TRPLG). TRPLG is a 501C5 organization representing the interests of Texas Rice
Producers. Please contact Ronald Gertson, CWIC chair, for further information or questions
regarding the above comments. Mr. Gertson may be reached by phone at 979-758-4670 or by
email at [email protected].
Page 17 of 250
Advisory Committee - Environmental Interest
From: Cindy Loeffler [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP; Greg Graml
Cc: Myron Hess; Colette Barron Bradsby; David Bradsby; [email protected];
[email protected]; Ben Vaughan
Subject: Environmental interest group draft Water Management Plan comments
Please find attached joint comments regarding the draft Water Management Plan submitted by the
environmental interest members of the Water Management Plan Advisory Committee.
Thanks,
Cindy
Cindy Loeffler
Water Resources Branch Chief
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Rd.
Austin, Texas 78744
512-389-8715
Page 18 of 250
Page 19 of 250
February 9, 2012
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, National Wildlife Federation, and Lone Star
Chapter of the Sierra Club Comments on January 23, 2012 Draft LCRA WMP
In this document, proposed additions are shown with underlining and proposed deletions are
shown with strikethrough. Separate comments related to Chapter 4 are contained in the attached
redlined version of Chapter 4.
Page ES-3, “C. DEMANDS:” The introductory paragraph fails to acknowledge the dependence
of the commercial fisheries and recreation-related businesses near the coast on water from the
lakes and the river. That is a significant oversight which should be addressed. Suggest revising
the 3rd sentence of that paragraph as follows:
“In addition, hydroelectric facilities, lake area businesses, commercial fisheries along the coast,
recreation-related businesses along the river and Matagorda Bay, recreation interests from the
lakes all the way to the coast, and the environment rely on the water.”
Page ES-6, “Separate curtailment procedures:” The rationale for the use of two separate
curtailment procedures could be made clearer by the addition of some explanatory language in
the last sentence of the first paragraph under this heading:
“More interruptible stored water would be provided in the initial years when firm demands are
lower and more restrictive curtailment procedures could be implemented over time as firm
demands increase.”
Page ES-8, “GLOSSARY:” The definition of “attenuation” uses the term “hydrograph.” It likely
would be helpful to add a definition of “hydrograph” because it is not a commonly encountered
term. It would also be helpful to add a definition of “freshwater inflow” as the WMP identifies
both instream flow (a defined term) and freshwater inflow as environmental flow needs.
Page 2-1, “2.1 BACKGROUND:” As noted above in the discussion of the executive summary,
the importance of river flows for supporting commercial fishing and recreational businesses
along the coast should be acknowledged. Suggest revising the 3rd sentence of that paragraph as
follows:
“In addition, hydroelectric facilities, lake area businesses, commercial fisheries along the coast,
recreation-related businesses along the river and Matagorda Bay, recreation interests from the
lakes all the way to the coast, and the environment rely on the water.”
Page 2-1, “2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS FOR INSTREAM FLOWS AND BAY AND
ESTUARY INFLOWS:” This section should acknowledge LCRA’s regulatory obligation to
provide water for environmental needs and its mission to ensure protection and constructive use
of the area’s natural resources. Suggest revising the paragraph to add a second and third
sentence as follows: “Pursuant to the TCEQ January 2010 Order, LCRA shall provide water for
environmental flow needs to the maximum extent reasonable and practicable when considering
all public interests. The LCRA is committed to using its leadership and environmental authority
to ensure the protection and constructive use of the area’s natural resources.”
Page 20 of 250
Page 2-7, “2.4.1 Instream flows:” Discussion should be added about the achievement frequency
aspects of the study recommendations in order to help provide a reasonable context for
consideration of study results.
For the 1st bullet point, dealing with subsistence flows, suggest adding a new sentence
after the first sentence to read as follows:
“The study recommendations provide a goal of maintaining flows at or above subsistence levels
at all times.”
For the 2nd bullet point, dealing with base flow recommendations, suggest adding a new
sentence after the second sentence to read as follows:
“Although the study recommendations acknowledge that the frequency of achievement may need
to be adjusted to reflect various considerations, from a purely environmental perspective, those
study recommendations call for achieving compliance, on a long-term basis, with Base-Dry
recommendations about 80% of the time and with Base-Average recommendations about 60% of
the time.”
Page 2-9, “2.4.2 Bay and estuary:” Discussion should be added about attainment frequency
aspects of the study recommendations in order to help provide helpful context for consideration
of study results. Suggest revising the last paragraph before Table 2-5 to read as follows:
“The recommended Colorado River inflow criteria from the MBHE study were designed to
cover the full range of inflow conditions into Matagorda Bay, with a regime that incorporates
five levels of inflow, each with an associated desired achievement guideline. The lowest level,
“Threshold,” is a fixed monthly value to provide refuge conditions that would ideally be
achieved 100% of the time. The remaining levels, MBHE-1 through MBHE-4, represent
different inflow targets that were recommended to be achieved with the following frequencies:
MBHE-1, 90%; MBHE-2, 75%; MBHE-3, 60%, and MBHE-4, 35%. Under this WMP revision,
LCRA would seek to meet the various levels, depending on the combined storage of lakes Travis
and Buchanan. The levels all include seasonal variability and incorporate influxes of fresh water
into the Bay in the spring and fall that reflect the natural pattern of inflows into the bay. The
MBHE freshwater inflow categories and descriptions are summarized in Table 2-5. The inflow
values associated with these inflow criteria are presented in Table 2-6.”
CHAPTER 4
ALLOCATION OF STORED WATER SUPPLIES, FIRM CUSTOMER DROUGHT
CONTINGENCY PLAN, AND AGRICULTURAL CUSTOMER DROUGHT
CONTINGENCY PLAN
4.3. CURTAILMENT PROCEDURES FOR THE FOUR DOWNSTREAM IRRIGATION
OPERATIONS
4.3.1 Introduction
Section 4.3 presents the curtailment procedures that apply to releases of interruptible stored
water for agricultural uses in the four downstream irrigation operations and serves as LCRA’s
Drought Contingency Plan for such uses.
Page 21 of 250
4.3.2 Determination of total amount of interruptible stored water available for the four
downstream irrigation operations
The procedures for determining the total amount of interruptible stored water available for the
four downstream irrigation operations include various elements and limitations as described in
the following subsections. As with recent WMPs, evaluation of demands and the curtailment of
interruptible stored water for Garwood and Pierce
COMMENT: Current language suggests
Ranch, consistent with the process described in
that contracts completely trump WMP
this Section, will be accomplished pursuant to the
even for Pierce Ranch.WMP describes the
terms of specific agreements related to the supply of exceptions.
interruptible water to those operations.
4.3.2.3. Curtailment curves for the supply of interruptible stored water
Interruptible stored water will be made available for diversion based upon the applicable
curtailment procedures (interim demand phase or 2020 demand phase) in effect for the calendar
year. For first crop, the greater of the Jan. 1 or March 1 combined storage values will be used in
conjunction with the applicable curtailment curves. For second crop, the greater of the June 1 or
Aug. 1 combined storage values will be used in conjunction with the applicable curtailment
curves.
The Interim Demand Phase and 2020 Demand Phase curtailment curves for first and second
crops are shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, respectively. These curtailment curves include increases
in the combined storage level below which interruptible stored water to Lakeside, Pierce Ranch
and Gulf Coast would be cut off prior to beginning a crop season. In previous WMPs, the cutoff
of interruptible stored water supply for agricultural use for the coming year would occur when
the combined storage in lakes Buchanan and Travis on Jan. 1 was less than or equal to 325,000
acre-feet. The total amount of interruptible stored water to be made available for diversion at the
irrigation operations river pump stations for all four irrigation operations will be determined as
follows:
During the Interim Demand Phase:

First Crop:
o For combined storage of 1.4 million acre-feet (MAF) or more, 198,500 acrefeet;
o For combined storage between 1.399 MAF and 1 MAF, a sliding scale from
155,000 acre-feet at 1.399 MAF of storage to 120,000 acre-feet at 1 MAF of
storage;
o For combined storage from 999,999 acre-feet to 650,000 acre-feet, 120,000
acre-feet; and
o Below 650,000 acre-feet, no water except for Garwood irrigation operation,
consistent with prior agreements.

Second Crop:
Page 22 of 250
o For combined storage of 1.55 MAF or more, 75,000 acre-feet;
o For combined storage between 1.549 MAF and 1 MAF, a sliding scale from
58,000 at 1.549 MAF of storage to 45,000 acre-feet at 1 MAF of storage;
o For combined storage from 999,999 acre-feet to 900,000 acre-feet, 45,000
acre-feet; and
During the 2020 Demand Phase:
 First Crop:
o For combined storage between 1.399 MAF and 1.1 MAF, a sliding scale from
140,000 acre-feet at 1.399 MAF of storage to 102,000 acre-feet at 1.1 MAF of
storage;
o For combined storage between 1.099 MAF and 650,000 acre-feet, 77,500
acre-feet; and
 Second Crop:
o For combined storage between 1.549 MAF and 1.0 MAF, a sliding scale
from 53,000 at 1.549 MAF of storage to 38,500 acre-feet at 1.0 MAF of
storage;
COMMENT: These descriptions
o For combined storage between
don’t match Figure 4-2 or the
999,999 acre-feet and 900,000
Advisory Committee discussions.
acre-feet, 29,500 acre-feet; and
Clarification is needed.
o Below 900,000 acre-feet, no
water except for Garwood irrigation operation, consistent with prior
agreements.
Page 23 of 250
Figure 4-1. Interruptible Stored Water Curtailment Curve
for the Interim Demand Phase
200,000
180,000
FIRST CROP
STORED WATER (AC-FT)
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
SECOND CROP
40,000
20,000
0
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
COMBINED STORAGE
Figure 4-2. Interruptible Stored Water Curtailment Curve
for Year 2020 Demand Phase
200,000
180,000
STORED WATER (AC-FT)
160,000
FIRST CROP
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
SECOND CROP
20,000
0
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
COMBINED STORAGE
4.3.2.5. Resumption of supply of interruptible stored water in a first crop season
Page 24 of 250
If the interruptible stored water supplies for first crop have been cut off and LCRA is not
under a declaration of Drought Worse than Drought of Record, the Board may consider
and take possible action to identify the
COMMENT: This section could
conditions under which interruptible stored
benefit from background
water supplies could be made available in
information as to why it might be
that crop season. Conditions for
appropriate to resume supplying
consideration include the time frame,
interruptible stored water in these
required increase in combined storage level,
circumstances. Are there limitations
and potential limitations controlling
to board action and/or opportunities
resumption of interruptible releases for first
for public comment with this action?
crop irrigation.
4.3.2.4. Anytime cutoff of interruptible stored water supplies
Under this WMP, LCRA will cease supplying interruptible stored water from lakes Buchanan and Travis
for agricultural use to Lakeside, Pierce Ranch and Gulf Coast when combined storage falls to 600,000
acre-feet. Previous plans set this cutoff level at 200,000 acre-feet. This cutoff could occur at any time in
a crop season.
Furthermore, in the event that the LCRA Board declares a Drought Worse than Drought of Record, the
supply of interruptible stored water shall be ceased immediately and no interruptible stored water shall
be made available to all any of the four downstream irrigation operations until the declaration is
cancelled.
4.3.4. Allocation of run-of-river supplies to the downstream irrigation operations
The allocation of run-of-river supplies to the downstream irrigation operations is based on prior
agreements and the relative priority of the Garwood, Gulf Coast and Lakeside water rights. Runof-river supply assumed to be available within each crop season (first or second crop) will be
allocated to the Garwood irrigation operation first because of the senior priority of the Garwood
water right. For purposes of determining available supply prior to the crop season, Pierce Ranch
will be allocated only interruptible stored water based on its contract, even if some portion of its
needs have been or may be met with run-of-river supply. The Gulf Coast water right is junior to
the Garwood right but senior to the Lakeside water right. Consequently, consistent with recent
availability under such rights, the remaining run-of-river water after Garwood will be split such
that the Gulf Coast operation is allocated 80 percent and the Lakeside operation is allocated 20
percent of the remaining assumed quantity. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 list the current assumed run-ofriver availability for each irrigation operation for the interim and year 2020 demand phases,
respectively. The dates used for making the determination of assumed run-of-river availability
will be the same as those established in Section 4.3.2.1 for the determination of interruptible
stored water availability. These amounts are applicable only during normal conditions and could
vary as a result of LCRA Board action under a dry weather or wet weather exception. (See
Section 4.4.) The overall run-of-river water availability for the year 2020 demand phase is
reduced for the Gulf Coast and Lakeside operations due to the increased demands of the City of
Austin, whose water right has priority for access to run-of-river supplies after Garwood, but
before Gulf Coast and Lakeside.
Page 25 of 250
4.5. CURTAILMENT PROCEDURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS IN LOWER
COLORADO RIVER BASIN
4.5.1. Helping meet environmental flow needs with firm and interruptible stored water
Under this WMP, as in past WMPs, a combination of firm and interruptible stored water is provided to
help meet environmental flow needs. LCRA has previously set aside 33,440 acre-feet per year of its firm
supply from lakes Buchanan and Travis for environmental flow purposes. No increase in that amount is
included in this WMP. In the event of a pro rata curtailment of firm water supplies, the water supplied
to meet applicable instream flow and bay and estuary inflow criteria will be subject to the same
percentage reduction as is imposed on LCRA’s firm water customers.
4.5.2. Curtailment of water for instream flows
This WMP revision includes up to three levels of instream flow target criteria, located at four
streamflow gauging station locations (Austin, Bastrop, Columbus and Wharton) as first
presented in Table 2-4 and repeated here as Table 4-3. For this WMP revision, the Wharton
gauge location has been added. Additionally, levels of instream flows have changed from
“critical” and “target” to “Subsistence,” “Base-Dry” and “Base-Average” based upon recent
studies.
When providing water under this WMP to help meet instream flows, the water available to meet
Base-Average and Base-Dry is limited to the storable inflows to lakes Buchanan and Travis. In
addition to storable inflows, previously stored water will be released as necessary to maintain
Subsistence flows. Tables 4-4 and 4-5 present the applicable instream flow criteria based on
combined storage in lakes Buchanan and Travis for the interim and 2020 demand phases,
respectively. In the event of a pro rata curtailment of firm supplies, the water supplied to meet
applicable instream flow criteria will be subject to the same percentage reduction as imposed on
LCRA’s firm water customers.
Page 26 of 250
Table 4-3. Subsistence and Base Flow Recommendations Criteria by Gauge (cubic feet per
second)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Austin
50
50
Subsistence
Bastrop
Subsistence
Base-Dry
Base- Average
50
50
50
50
208
313
433
274
317
497
274
274
497
184
287
635
Subsistence
Base-Dry
Base-Average
340
487
828
375
590
895
375
525
1,020
299
554
977
Subsistence
Base-Dry
Base-Average
315
492
838
303
597
906
204
531
1,036
270
561
1,011
275
202
579
418
824
733
Columbus
425
534
966
967
1,316 1,440
Wharton
304
371
985
984
1,397 1,512
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
50
50
50
50
50
50
137
347
610
123
194
381
123
236
423
127
245
433
180
283
424
186
311
450
342
570
895
190
310
516
279
405
610
190
356
741
202
480
755
301
464
737
212
577
906
107
314
522
188
410
617
147
360
749
173
486
764
202
470
746
Table 4-4. Instream Flow Triggers and Flow Levels for Interim and 2020 Demand Phases
When Combined Storage is…
Above 1.96 MAF
Between 1.90 and 1.96 MAF
Less than 1.90 MAF
On this date…
Jan. 1 or June 1
Jan. 1 or June 1
Jan. 1 or June 1
Instream Flow Level
Base-Average
Base-Dry
Subsistence
For purposes of this WMP revision, the Subsistence and Base Flow target criteria for gauges
other than the Austin gauge, are daily (or daily average) flow values. The Subsistence target
criteria at Austin is represent minimum (or instantaneous) flow requirements. Furthermore, for
the Bastrop gauge, the following minimum flow requirements apply:

During those times when Base-Average criteria are in effect, the minimum (or
instantaneous) flow requirements, subject to availability of inflows, and inflows
are sufficient to meet Base Averaage at Bastrop on a daily average basis, the
minimum flow criteria shall be the 80 percent of the Base-Dry Average criteria for
the given month.

During those times when Base-Dry criteria are in effect, the minimum (or
instantaneous) flow requirements, subject to availability of and inflows, are
sufficient to meet Base Dray at Bastrop on a daily average basis, the minimum
flow criteria shall be the 80 percent of the
Base-Dry Subsistence criteria for the given COMMENT: Because only
subsistence criteria apply below 1.9
month.

During those times that Subsistence criteria
MAF, these protections need to be
strengthened. The minimum flow
protections linked to base flow
criteria would rarely even apply.
Page 27 of 250
are in effect, releases shall be scheduled such that the minimum flow does not drop
below:
a.
790 percent of Subsistence criteria when combined storage is equal to or
greater than 1.4 million acre-feet; or
b. 85 percent of Subsistence criteria when combined storage is less than 1.4
million acre-feet.
In order to help meet the instream flow targets criteria in the lower Colorado River, LCRA will
schedule releases of inflows in amounts sufficient to meet the applicable criteria, to the extent of
storable inflows or, for Subsistence, using previously stored water. In scheduling releases, LCRA
will rely on best available data sources, including but not limited to: measurements of rainfall
and water levels in streams and reservoirs; flow ratings for streams, canals, hydroelectric
turbines, spillways, floodgates, and pumps; elevation/area/capacity ratings for reservoirs; model
results for predicted storm runoff and ungauged gains or losses of flow along the Colorado
River; simulated routing and attenuation of flows along channels and through reservoirs; effluent
discharge as reported by wastewater treatment plant operators, and; scheduled and actual
pumping as reported by major diverters.
By scheduling releases in this manner, LCRA will meet its obligation under the Water
Management Plan. In rare instances, LCRA’s ability to meet the flow targets criteria, despite
reasonable efforts to do so, may be impaired by unavoidable constraints such as unforeseen
diversions, unforeseen changes in flow conditions downstream, unforeseen operations at
Longhorn Dam, and adjustments to gauges or flow ratings. LCRA shall operate in such a
manner that flows at any applicable gauge do not deviate below the applicable targets criteria
for that gauge on more than 18 days in any calendar year. Furthermore, to the extent that the
deviation is a result of inaccuracies in LCRA’s estimates of downstream diversions by LCRA
operations, downstream contributing inflows, downstream return flows, or the effects of routing
and attenuation as releases pass downstream, the collective impact of such constraints may not
be relied upon to excuse a deviation of more than a 15 percent or 50 cfs, whichever is greater,
below applicable daily average criteria targets on any individual day or a deviation of more
than 15 percent below applicable minimum (or instantaneous) requirements at the Austin
gauge. Those circumstances may not be relied upon to excuse a deviation below the
minimum flow requirements for the Bastrop gauge described above. In the event that the
deviation is caused by events outside of LCRA’s reasonable control – such as operations at
Longhorn Dam, ERCOT requirements, a change in rating at a gauge, or diversions by others that
could not reasonably have been predicted by LCRA – such deviation is not subject to the 15
percent or 50 cfs limitation. Furthermore, in the event of flow data that indicate a deviation has
occurred, and after inspection of relevant data and/or the gauge itself to determine the
reasonableness of such data, if LCRA determines that the flow data wasere inaccurate and that
the actual flow rate was above the applicable threshold requirement, the event shall not be
deemed to be a deviation. Additionally, in the event that storable inflows are sufficient to meet a
Base-Flow or Base-Dry flow target criterion for a given day, but not a consecutive day, or that
applicable criteria change on the first day of a month, compliance with applicable targets
Page 28 of 250
criteria at gauges where the time to deliver water from Tom Miller Dam to such gauge is not an
even multiple of 24-hours may be determined over continuous 24-hour periods other than
midnight-to-midnight. In the event of an impairment on an individual day or days, LCRA will
schedule releases over the subsequent days to ensure that the average flow for any consecutive
10-day period that begins with the day of any such impairment does not fall below the applicable
instream flow targets criterion, subject to the availability of storable inflows, or for Subsistence,
the availability of a combination of storable inflows and previously stored water.
Although LCRA will not manage water in the lower basin to specifically provide for pulse flows
as part of this WMP, LCRA will monitor pulse flows in the lower river basin during the time
period when this WMP update is in effect in order to help assess whether pulse flows are
occurring with the frequency recommended in the 2008 comprehensive instream flow
study. The monitoring data and analyses will be public information and new information
will be made available to the public on a periodic basis, starting no later than the next
revision process for the WMP.
4.5.3. Curtailment of water for freshwater inflows to Matagorda Bay
The 2010 WMP included three levels (critical, intermediate and target) of freshwater inflow
criteria. This WMP includes five levels based upon the Matagorda Bay Health Evaluation
(MBHE) study.
For purposes of this WMP, new “Operational Criteria” have been developed to help guide
implementation aimed at meeting the range of freshwater inflow needs from the Colorado
River associated with identified in the MBHE study. Instead of the monthly requirement that
has been used in prior WMPs, the MBHE three-month “spring” and “fall” and six-month
“intervening” flow totals for a given inflow category have been converted into equivalent twomonth Operational Criteria (OP 1-4) as first presented in Table 2-8 and repeated here in Table 45. (See Section 2.4.2 for further explanation of these criteria.) At the end of each month, to the
extent that storable inflows are available, such inflows will be provided as necessary to meet the
two-month Operational Criteria. In all months, at least the “Threshold” level of 15,000 acre-feet
per month will also be provided to the extent of storable inflows. In the event of a pro rata
curtailment of firm supplies, the water released to meet applicable inflow criteria (including the
Threshold criteria) will be subject to the same percentage reduction as imposed on LCRA’s firm
water customers.
4.6. CURTAILMENT PROCEDURES FOR
INTERRUPTIBLE STORED WATER DEMANDS
OTHER THAN THE DOWNSTREAM IRRIGATION
OPERATIONS
LCRA will limit additional sales or commitments of
interruptible stored water, other than for the four
COMMENT: linked to base flow
criteria would rarely even apply.
Clarification is needed here (or
elsewhere in the document) to
accurately describe the uses of water
contracted under the downstream
irrigation operations. We understand
that row crop, turf grass, and “duck
water” are all supplied under the
irrigation operations and are not
included in the 4000 acre-feet water
supply contracts. Those unfamiliar
with LCRA contracting may read this
section as the four downstream
29 ofsolely
250
irrigation operations asPage
referring
to rice irrigation operations.
downstream irrigation operations, based on the combined volume of water in lakes Buchanan
and Travis at certain times of the year. Sales of water in this category will be limited to not more
than a combined total of 4,000 acre-feet per year as follows:


If combined storage on Jan. 1 is greater than 1.9 MAF, up to 2,000 acre-feet will be made
available for the period from Jan. 1 through June 30.
If combined storage on June 1 is greater than 1.9 MAF, up to 2,000 acre-feet will be
made available for the period from July 1 through Dec. 31.
Within two weeks of the Jan. 1 and June 1 trigger dates, the LCRA General Manager will notify,
in writing, each holder of a contract under this provision of the availability of supply for the six
months following the trigger dates.
LCRA will not enter into any new contracts or extend any existing contracts for this category of
water sales for a term beyond Dec. 31, 2018. As of Jan. 1, 2019, this category of water supply
will be eliminated.
4.7.4. Variances to firm water pro rata curtailment
LCRA’s General Manager may, in writing, grant a temporary variance to the pro rata water allocation
requirement in Section 4.7.2 if it is determined that failure to grant such a variance would cause an
emergency condition adversely affecting the public health, welfare or safety, and if one or more of the
following conditions are met:
1) Compliance with the requirement cannot be technically accomplished during the
duration of the water supply shortage or other condition for which the plan is in
effect; and/or
2) Alternative methods can be implemented that will achieve the same level of reduction
in water use.
Details regarding the procedures by which a customer may seek a variance are found in LCRA’s firm
water contract rules.
In addition, LCRA’s General Manager may, in writing, grant a temporary variance to the pro rata
curtailment of water supplied to meet environmental flow criteria if the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department submits a written variance request, and the General Manager determines that a variance
is justified in order to avoid severe adverse biological conditions.
Page 30 of 250
Advisory Committee - Firm Customer Interest
From: Lutes, Teresa [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Meszaros, Greg; Crow, Ross; Fox, Jeff; [email protected]
Subject: City of Austin Comments on Draft WMP
Dear LCRA,
Attached are City of Austin comments on the Draft Lakes Buchanan and Travis Water
Management Plan and Drought Contingency Plans. We anticipate having some
additional comments, including comments on subsequent sections (pages following 4-11),
which we will plan to submit by mid-day tomorrow.
Thank you,
-Teresa Lutes
Teresa Lutes, P.E.
Managing Engineer
Systems Planning Division
Water Resources Management
Austin Water Utility
(512)972-0179 office
(512)785-1524 cell
City of Austin Comments on Draft Lakes Buchanan and
Travis Water Management Plan and Drought Contingency Plans (January 23, 2012)
Page ES-1. The terms “cut back” and “curtail” are used interchangeably throughout the
document. Consider adding the phrase “cut back” to the definition of curtail, e.g.,
“Curtail is also herein referred to as cut back.”
Page ES-1. The final paragraph contains the phrase “which increases the likelihood of
significant shortages of interruptible stored water.” Suggest using the phrase “which
increases the likelihood of interruptible stored water curtailment or cutoff during dry
periods” as a replacement throughout the document to remain consistent with the
defined terms.
Page ES-2. The seventh bulleted item characterizes the curtailment procedures as “less
restrictive” and “more restrictive”. Where these statements are found throughout the
document, consider adding an explanation, such as, “Curtailment procedures were
developed to coincide with the increase in firm demand and addition of historical
hydrological data.” and “As firm demands increase or historical hydrological data
warrants, the curtailment procedures are adjusted accordingly.”
Page 31 of 250
Page ES-3. As a firm customer, the City recommends inserting “without shortage” in the
first bullet after “Firm water is available” for consistency with the definition on page ES-9.
This comment applies throughout the document where the availability of firm water is
mentioned.
Page ES-4. Consider replacing the first sentence of footnote 2 with: “By contract, these
customers depend on their own independent run-of-river rights with backup of (firm)
water supplies from LCRA.”
Page ES-5. The final sentence of the first paragraph uses the phrase “unreliable or
insufficient”. Consider using the phrase “available in quantity or timing that does not
correspond to” as a replacement throughout the document.
Page ES-5. In the first paragraph under subsection D, consider replacing the phrase
“different scenarios and different management alternatives” with the following phrase
“different or alternative management scenarios through a repeated period of
hydrology”. In the final sentence of the first paragraph, considering replacing the
phrase “streamflow data, hydrology and climate conditions” with the phrase, “net
evaporation-precipitation and historic naturalized streamflow data”. These suggested
replacements apply to the same language in Chapter 3.
Page ES-5. In the final paragraph under subsection D, consider inserting the word
“hydrologic” after “recent historic”. Also consider inserting the word “period” after
“1999-2009” for consistency with the text in Chapter 3.
Page ES-6. In the second sentence of the second paragraph, recommend adding the
word “full” before the phrase “firm demand” in the phrase, “it is essential that firm water
demands be protected through a repeat of the Drought of Record.”
Page ES-6. In the second to last paragraph, consider replacing the phrase “to be more
adaptive” with the phrase “to align the interruptible stored water curtailment
procedures with the level of firm demand”. This suggestion is offered for the entire
document where the phrase “more adaptive” is used in a similar manner.
Page ES-7. Under the section titled “Annual limit on interruptible stored water”, consider
adding an explanation of the difference between diverted water and released water
for clarity. One possibility is to briefly describe that released water for interruptible stored
water will exceed the amount of water diverted for reasons which include (insert
explanations), and that to the extent possible, the excess released water that is not lost
may be used by customers downstream of the agricultural diversion points along the
river. We request that an estimated range of the release amount that was lost or not
diverted based on recent hydrology be included with the explanation.
Page ES-9. The following is offered as a revision to the definition of Drought of Record
and is taken from the State Water Plan: “Period of time during recorded history when
natural hydrological conditions provided the least amount of water supply.”
Page 32 of 250
Page ES-10. Consider removing “worst” and capitalizing “drought of record” or adding
a parenthetical (DOR) in the definition of firm yield to connect with the definition of
Drought of Record on the previous page.
Page ES-10. Consider adding a definition of “pass-throughs”. This term is used in the
definition of storable inflows and in several other places within the document.
Section 1.1. The City greatly appreciates the summary provided in Section 1.1. As in the
2010 WMP, please include the 1988 Final Judgement and Decree, with its supporting
exhibits, as an attachment to this WMP. This is an important foundational document to
the LCRA WMP.
Page 1-3. Consider adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph to clarify that
the firm water commitment for instream flow maintenance is not also decreasing.
Page 1-5. The first paragraph begins with “Over more than 12 months” and the second
paragraph uses the phrase “the 12-month process”. Please revise for clarity.
Page 2-1. Consider adding “water supply” before the phrase “reservoir system” in the
first sentence of the second paragraph.
Page 2-5. The fourth sentence of the second paragraph refers to Figure 2-1 as “water
demand” whereas the title of the graph on the next page refers to “water use”. Please
consider revising the description on page 2-5 and the title of Figure 2-1. Also consider
clarifying if the amount shown is a combination of run-of-river, stored water, and losses.
Also indicate if the amount shown pertains to river pumping amounts or on-farm use.
Based on the amount from the LCRA 2009 water use report, it appears the amounts
shown in Figure 2-1 does not include losses, which can present a significant
consumption of stored water. In the LCRA 2009 water use report, losses of stored water
amounted to approximately 67,000 ac-ft. If losses of stored water are not to be
included in Figure 2-1 that losses, for which there is available data, be included in a
table or in text that accompanies the figure.
Page 3-1. In the first sentence of the third paragraph in section 3.1, consider replacing
“day-to-day” with “regular” to avoid potential confusion with modeling time step size.
Page 3-2. In the last sentence of the fourth paragraph, delete the unnecessary and
unquantified phrase “as it impacts”. The same comment applies to this phrase as it is
found on page 3-5. This statement is inconsistent with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. Instead, please insert the phrase “as it relates to”.
Page 4-3. Consider inserting the word “combined” after the word “minimum” in the first
sentence of the first paragraph.
Page 4-3. In the third sentence of the first paragraph, consider replacing the phrase
“safety factor” with the phrase “minimum combined storage”. This suggestion applies
throughout the document where the phrase “safety factor” is used.
Page 33 of 250
Page 4-7. Consider adding an explanation for basis of the values given in the last
sentence of the first paragraph under section 4.3.2.2. The explanation could be offered
here or in a section describing the water availability modeling results.
Page 4-9. Consider revising the y-axis labels of both graphs to read as “Diverted Stored
Water”
Page 4-11. The last sentence of the first paragraph uses the phrase “will be split evenly
between” whereas the language of section 4.3.4 states there is an 80 to 20 percent
allotment between the two districts. Please consider revising the phrase in the first
paragraph for clarity.
From: Lutes, Teresa [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Meszaros, Greg; Crow, Ross; Fox, Jeff; [email protected]; James Kowis
Subject: RE: City of Austin Comments on Draft WMP
Dear LCRA,
Attached are additional City of Austin comments on the Draft Lakes Buchanan and Travis Water
Management Plan and Drought Contingency Plans, which we indicated yesterday would be
submitted today.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Thank you,
-Teresa Lutes
Teresa Lutes, P.E.
Managing Engineer
Systems Planning Division
Water Resources Management
Austin Water Utility
(512)972-0179 office
(512)785-1524 cell
Page 34 of 250
Page 35 of 250
From: Gangluff, Richard [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:13 PM
To: Tom Hegemier
Cc: Dannhardt, Sandra
Subject: Water Management Plan Editorial Comments
Tom,
Good afternoon. As you probably recall, we have provided comments previously to LCRA, including early
on in the Water Management Plan process that the correct name of our company is the STP Nuclear
Operating Company (STPNOC) and the name of the station is the South Texas Project (STP). I have
rd
highlighted the examples in the attached draft January 23 WMP that say “South Texas Project Nuclear
Operating Company” instead of STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC). I think all the references to
the South Texas Project or STP are correct. The company and station names are consistent with
Certificate of Adjudication, the Contractual Permit, and our Amended and Restated Contract.
rd
Can you still make the STP Nuclear Operating Company changes in the January 23 version of the draft
WMP or do I need to submit them through the public comment channel now?
Thanks,
Rick
Page 36 of 250
Advisory Committee - Lake Interest
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of JK Tedder
To: WMP
Subject: Consensus WMP Comments
Please find attached the WMP public comments from the Lakes Stakeholder Team and
Central Texas Water Coalition.
Jo Karr Tedder
President, CTWC
512.715.0015
www.OurWater-OurFuture.com
www.facebook.com/centraltexaswatercoalition
February 9, 2012
Lower Colorado River Authority
Attn: Board of Directors
P.O. Box 220
Austin, TX 78767
RE:
Comments Regarding Current Draft Water Management Plan
Dear Board:
I am submitting these comments on behalf of Central Texas Water Coalition. We respectfully request
that the LCRA Board take the two following actions:
1) Approve the current draft Water Management Plan (“the Draft Plan”) at the February 22, 2012
meeting, and direct that the Draft Plan be immediately submitted to the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) for review.
2) Request an expedited review of the Draft Plan by TCEQ, and make assisting TCEQ in its review a top
priority for LCRA Staff.
We look forward to continuing to work with you, your staff, and the other Advisory Committee
members on the challenging issues facing our basin.
Sincerely,
Jo Karr Tedder,
Member, LCRA WMP Advisory Committee
President, Central Texas Water Coalition
Page 37 of 250
cc:
Becky Motal, LCRA General Manager
Senator Troy Fraser
Senator Kirk Watson
Representative Jimmie Don Aycock
Representative Donna Howard
Representative Paul Workman
Representative Charles Schwertner
Representative Harvey Hilderbran
From: Kerry Spradley [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Adoption of WMP Amendment based on consensus agreement reached by WMP Advisory
Committee
To all it may concern:
It was a privilege to serve as a stakeholder on the 2010-2011 WMP Advisory Committee.
I strongly urge the Board to adopt the amendment to the WMP as proposed by the WMP Advisory
Committee in its consensus recommendation.
Many old methods and practices of water use need to be changed beginning today!
We all must learn to use our precious water resources more conservatively and I think that this
proposed amendment is a step in the correct direction for the future of not only our basin but for the
State of Texas.
After many months of tedious and sometimes trying work, the Committee agreed on a Consensus
recommendation to be made to the L.C.R.A. Board based on the best science and WAMs available.
This could not have been done without the diligent time and effort that was put forth by the L.C.R.A.
staff and I am very thankful for their careful consideration of all aspects of this recommended plan.
The historic decisions in this recommendation are huge. The first being a cap placed on the amount of
stored water that can be used for irrigation purposes and the second being a threefold increase in the
minimum amount of stored water to be maintained. These, combined with a truly significant
operational breakthrough of having a separate decision date for first and second crop made this
consensus possible.
I recognize that the Board has the ultimate right to approve any amendment that they desire, but I
would strongly urge the Board not to go backwards in this process by approving a plan amendment that
reduces the trigger levels found in the Consensus agreement, because these changes may or may not
produce significant unintended consequences.
As we go through this extremely arid period please take into consideration that the record low in-flow
totals experienced in 2011 were not modeled in our negotiations!
Thanks you for your consideration of these comments in making your historic decision.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kerry Spradley
WMPAC representing Lake Travis residents interests.
Page 38 of 250
From: Hi Line [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:46 AM
To: WMP
Subject:
I ask you to please pass the Water Management Plan as originally proposed.
Rusty Brandon
Hi-Line Lake Resort
325-379-1065
www.hilinelakeresort.com
From: Dorothy Taylor [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 9:31 AM
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WMP PLAN
PASS THE WMP PLAN
Page 39 of 250
Elected Officials
Page 40 of 250
From: Shera Eichler [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:06 PM
To: Fred Aus
Subject: Bonnen letter to LCRA Board re: Water Management Plan
Fred,
Attached is a letter from Rep. Bonnen to the LCRA board in response to the proposed Water
Management Plan. Will you please ensure that it is delivered to the appropriate individuals? Also, do I
need to drop a hard copy in the mail and/or fax it to LCRA to make sure it is made a part of the public
record?
As always, thanks so much for your assistance -Best,
Shera Eichler
Chief of Staff/Scheduler
Office of State Rep. Dennis Bonnen
(512) 463-0564
Fax: (512) 463-8414
Page 41 of 250
Page 42 of 250
From: Garry Brown [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Letter to LCRA Board Members Re: Proposed Water Management Plan Revisions
Attached, please find a letter from Travis County Commissioner Karen Huber in regards
to revisions to the proposed water management plan.
Please let me know if I may need to send it in another format.
Thank you.
Garry Brown
Chief of Staff, Commissioner Karen Huber
314 W. 11th Street, Suite 530
Austin, Texas 78701
512-854-9386
Page 43 of 250
Page 44 of 250
Page 45 of 250
PHILLIP S. SPENRATH
Wharton County Judge
309 E. MILAM STREET, SUITE 600
Wharton, Texas 77488
Office: (979)532-4612 Fax: (979)532-1970
Joyce Ferrell
Administrative Assistant
Coordinator
Patty Shannon
Court
January 30, 2012
RE: LCRA Water Management Plan
Dear Directors,
On behalf of the residents of Wharton County, Thank You for your hard work and sincerity in ensuring
that our updated Water Management Plan fairly addresses the needs of all residents and counties
positioned along the Lower Colorado River region.
In addressing the updated WMP, we must again remind all interests that the Lower Colorado River
Authority has made historic promises that downstream rice farmers will always have access to river
water. Additionally, if the Colorado River ever does draw down, the LCRA has committed to sending
storage water to meet irrigation needs.
In reviewing the specific proposals, we agree the WMP needs to be more flexible and that
implementation of multiple trigger points will provide more accurate gauging of available water supply.
Aside from this, the residents of Wharton County strongly contend that the only true and viable solution
to avoiding future shortages is for you, the LCRA Board of Directors, to immediately begin identifying
locations for critical off-channel reservoirs and include those sites in this updated WMP. We do NOT
need NOR DO WE SUPPORT further studies.
Just last week, the City of Austin received 5 inches of rainfall and Bastrop reported another 7 inches.
Here in Wharton County, the Colorado River rose quickly from a 9 foot low to over 31 feet at its cresting.
I can’t tell you how thrilling it was to see all of that water at a time when local farmers and ag-related
businesses anxiously await the upcoming growing season.
Regrettably, within hours, the water receded and our hopes for much needed relief washed out into the
Gulf of Mexico. Wharton County and our surrounding neighbors cannot wait another 10 years. Those
living along the Highland Lakes and in the City of Austin cannot wait. The LCRA must take immediate
action to capture the un-appropriated flows of precious water that continue to escape down our
Colorado River.
Sincerely,
Phillip S. Spenrath
Wharton County Judge
Page 46 of 250
From: Jeanne Emerson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Board; Franklin Spears Jr. (LCRA); Jett Johnson (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA); John Franklin
(LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA); Lori Berger (LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); 'Ray Gill'; Rebecca Klein
(LCRA); 'Sandy Kibby'; 'Scott Arbuckle'; Steve Balas (LCRA); Thomas Martine (LCRA); Timothy
Timmerman (LCRA); Vernon Schrader
Cc: 'Bill Neve'; Donna Klaeger (External); 'Joe Don Dockery'; 'Ronny Hibler'; 'Russell Graeter'
Subject: Public Comment to LCRA Board
On behalf of Judge Donna Klaeger, the attached letter is a Public Comment and
addresses the Water Management Plan.
Jeanne Emerson
Commissioner's Court Coordinator
512-715-5276
[email protected]
Page 47 of 250
Page 48 of 250
Remaining Public Comment
From: Connie Ripley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 2:19 PM
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
You have a good beginning point with the new WMP Draft, but much is still to be done.
More water is needed for the future—more reservoirs and recharging aquifers.
Wasting water needs to stop. (1)Closing coal and nuclear plants, and (2)using more wind farms and
solar power on buildings will help stop environmental contamination, as well as wasting less water.
(3)Lining and cleaning irrigation canals in the lower basin will also reduce water waste. (4)More
emphasis on conservation plus (5)more rain and condensate water collection is needed.
LCRA also needs to put more emphasis on the desalination process and on wind power on the coast as
well as stainless steel pipes to allow salt water to be used in cooling for desalination.
Connie Ripley
President, DELTA
From: Mitch Thames [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Proposed Water Managermnet Plan
Please replace my previous letter with the corrected one.
Thanks
Mitch Thames
Bay City Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture
Office: 979-245-8333
Fax: 979-245-1622
[email protected]
Page 49 of 250
Mr. Timothy Timmerman
Chairman, LCRA Board of Directors
LCRA Headquarters
3700 Lake Austin Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78703
February 6, 2012
RE: Public Comments for Proposed Water Management Plan
Matagorda County is concerned. We understand that we are in the LCRA system
by design, in fact, we know our county leaders fought hard to have LCRA created. We
understood the importance of planning, working together and building for the future. In
working together for this proposed water management plan, actions were taken to
make various groups happy and persuaded other groups to go along. There are problems
that need to be handled differently than groups compromising, sometimes we find
ourselves doing the comfortable thing, not the right thing. Please step up and do the right
thing.
There have been many years that have been wasted by us and LCRA with
planning for continued growth and change. Now we find ourselves with abundant growth
and change. It is our belief that we must do the right thing and work together to make this
plan work for all of us.
We understand this will not be easy, we understand it will take years to get
everyone to see the benefits of working together.
This proposed WMP is a good piece of work. It contains many of the pieces that
will be needed for our future. But, the plan lacks one major component, adequate stored
water for all.
Leaving the stored water “for all” part off this plan is wrong. We understand that
it is complicated; we know it will be expensive, but that is not a reason to leave it out.
Remember we have to do the right thing, not what is comfortable. We will work with the
board, staff, stake holders, agriculture interests, business leaders, and state and local
elected officials to see that we get the funding and the help to make this happen.
Page 50 of 250
I can only wonder what the reaction was over 80 years ago when someone said lets store
water in the hill country and create the Highland Lakes System. It had to be close to today’s
needs. They needed stored water then, and we need stored water now.
It has been said many times by many people that you should not prepare a WMP during a
drought. I believe that statement now more than ever. Today, there are emails flying around your
Board members and LCRA Staff of providing relief to the lower basin was “going too far”.
During this drought, we understand that all of the basin will hurt. I congratulate you on working
for the entire basin. We were a part of LCRA in the beginning and we are still a part of this
organization.
We make the distinction between the current drought and the proposed WMP.
In the new plan, removing dollars from the local communities through the loss of production of
rice will devastate our area.
Thank you for working with the agriculture interests on the revised models and trigger
points. It is important to understand that you did not just help a few rice farmers; you helped an
entire rural economy. You should not pick winners and losers.
It does bother us that there will be times that you will be forced to release water from the
lakes to compensate for extra rains and no one can use that water as it flows by our
neighborhood.
We have to have the words and the commitment to our future in this plan. Please include
the statement in the plan that “for every acre foot of water curtailed there will be an acre foot
stored in the lower three counties”.
We believe if we use this guidance it will motivate many of us to act. It will be an
incentive for the lakes interests to make sure there is enough stored water that their businesses
and marinas are protected, it will encourage firm water customers to promote stored water so
their needs are met for continued growth and operation. It will encourage the lower basin to find
ways for everyone to work together to build and fill off-channel reservoirs and partner for our
future.
I believe that we can create a valuable team of land owners, businesses, agriculture
interests and citizens to think and work outside the box to find creative ways to overcome the
difficulties of storing water.
As an example, I have been talking with land owners and asking difficult questions, such
as, “would you allow your land to be used for water storage if you were allowed a small portion
of the water, maybe a tenth”? They were interested.
We have talked about balancing ponds out along the existing canals. I believe we need all
of the solutions, large reservoirs, small ponds, ground water recharge, all at once, not just make
the statement that we will set a goal of 100,000 AFW stored by 2017. It takes a lot more that
100,000 AFW annually to sustain the historic rice production levels in the Lower Basin.
Please allow us to join forces and join with LCRA in placing stored water in this plan.
Mitch Thames
President
Bay City Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture
Page 51 of 250
From: Owen Bludau [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Draft Plan Coments
I do not like this proposed Water Management Plan (WMP).
I think it unfairly gives far greater importance to people who "look upon"
(lakeside residents and restaurants) and people who "recreate on" (boaters,
skiers, fishermen, marina owners) Colorado River water than to those whose
livelihoods depend on economically productive use of the river water. Those
who look upon and recreation on the lake waters are paying not one cent for
that privilege. However, their demands to continue "free" use of that stored
water is being given far greater weight in the proposed WMP and LCRA than
are the long-term historic and truly productive needs of those who have been
paying LCRA for use of Colorado River water from years and decades. That is
not a fair equation or balance.
I do not think the proposed WMP allows enough flexibility for the LCRA board
to determine if there is sufficient water on January 1st and when a firm
commitment to plant is not made until later by rice irrigators. For example, if
the lake levels were below the trigger point allowing irrigation water release as
of January 1st, but rose in response to January and February rains to the point
were sufficient water was available for irrigation, the decision to deny
irrigation water would have been made and made unnecessarily. That decision
should be pushed back as far as possible to account for the actual water levels
in the lakes before final denial is determined and the point when rice farmers
must make a "plant or not plant" decision in the spring.
The plant calls for construction of Lower Basin off-channel storage reservoirs.
Those are definitely needed, the more the better. It does not make sense that
the Colorado River water storage reservoirs are located in the drier part of the
river basin while there is no storage in the wetter portion of the river basin.
Much flood water could be captured and stored for irrigation and industrial use
Page 52 of 250
if there was a large amount of storage in numerous reservoirs in the Lower
Basin. The construction of multiple storage reservoirs in the Lower Basin
cannot begin soon enough. However, there must be restrictions placed on use
of the water in those Lower Basin reservoirs so that it will not be pumped back
upstream to support the population and economic growth of Austin and the
lakes interests at the cost of Lower Basin growth and economic interests. Such
reverse pumping was included as an option in the SAWS report with the large
reservoir proposed as part of the SAWS project.
If the lakes interest feel that their economy requires denying water to Lower
Basin irrigators and industry, then it is only right that they also help pay
for creating replacement water in Lower Basin off-channel reservoirs in
exchange for they water they are denying to the historic users of that water
and for whom the storage lakes were created in the first place. There is now
no requirement for that equity in the WMP. It will not be fair to charge the
cost of construction, operations and management of Lower Basin off-channel
reservoirs solely to Lower Basin rice irrigators, municipal customers and
industries when the demands of Austin and the lakes interests are denying
stored water historically captured for use by Lower Basin interests and to
control Austin's flooding.
Owen W. Bludau
Executive Director
Matagorda County Economic Development Corporation
From: Pete Hausmann [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:02 AM
To: WMP
Subject: Water Management Plan
I did not have time to read and digest all the data, but one of the things that stands out to me is the fact
that a golf course has a firm water commitment whereas agriculture and the environment is
interruptible. I just can’t understand how a leisure activity can come ahead of food production.
Pete Hausmann
Page 53 of 250
From: Charles Miller [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP comments
LCRA;
The Draft appears balanced and well thought-out; however, had you done this work sooner much
less water would have been released in 2010. The staff and the board are doing a much better
job of monitoring and anticipating future needs and conditions. My request and advice is that
you be more rigorous in these tasks and that you act more expeditiously.
I remember the drought of the 1950s and the numerous floods and droughts since. LCRA has
done many good things, but it could and should have done even better in managing our water.
Charles Miller
Kingsland
From: Kathy Winkler [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Proposed WMP
Dear LCRA, we completely support the new WMP.
In 2005 we bought a beautiful waterfront lot on Lake Travis, my lifelong retirement dream. But we
have not built on the lot, and if the new WMP is not adopted, we will never build on the lot, as we will
never be able to trust the LCRA to manage the lake so that there is actually water in it.
We have watched the horrific condition of the lake grow along with our distrust of lake management,
the LCRA, who seemingly regards the lake as a bucket of water to be used to kill weeds for rice farmers
counties away. We were horrified when the LCRA released 2 feeds to the rice farmers last year in the
midst of this terrible drought. Horrified to watch the environmental and economic damage to this area
we love. We’ve watched the city of Austin, who prepaid their water bill with the LCRA, restrict watering
until yards turned brown and trees died, while the south Texas rice farmers raked in record crops and
profits while paying a fraction of the water rate Austin pays. We are horrified, furious and frustrated,
and feel powerless to change it.
Just due to the economy, we have already lost about 30% of what we paid for the lot in 2005. If the new
WMP isn’t approved and sane lake management practices aren’t adopted, which value the lake as the
economic driver for central Texas that it is, I feel sure that we will lose much more value in the lot,
indeed if it is sellable at all – a lot on dry gulch.
Page 54 of 250
It is a cruelty joke – buy your dream lot, invest your life savings, and lose it all because of drought
combined with insane lake management practices. The new WMP has given us hope that maybe we
can trust the LCRA, hope that maybe our lake will have water in it again and that water will not be
constantly flushed downstream to kill weeds for the rice farmers, and hope that we can fulfill my lifelong
dream to build on that lot, and retire to the most beautiful spot on Earth.
We support the new WMP.
Kathy
Kathy Winkler
214-673-8326
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Public comment on Highland Lakes water policy
[email protected]
Hello,
Thank you for accepting public comment on highland lake water use policy.
The proposed Water Management Plan is a good first step. However, further investigation and policy
implementation is needed.
Bottom line . . . keep the highland lakes full to 3/4 full as much as possible. What comes into the lakes
from rainfall can be sold to the farmers downstream. No rain...no sale. Count on six feet of water drop
from evaporation per year. This keeps the businesses around the lakes happy and if there is water to
spare, the farmers are also happy. If the drought continues, so does farming.
From a long time Texas farmer,
Jay Carpenter
Austin, Texas
512-453-5111
Page 55 of 250
From: james campion [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: james campion
Subject: Comment on Water Management Plan
I own 463 acres of farm land in Matagorda county. I have three comments on the recently revised and
the proposed revisions to your water management plan.
1. My income from this property comes from rice farming and duck/goose hunting leases. Your denying
me irrigation water effectively eliminates these income producing uses of my property. I am willing to
sacrifice and conserve along with everyone else but, in this instance, it seems those of us on the Gulf
Coast are being asked to do much more than a fair share. A reduction in water allocation rather than
elimination would be more fair. If elimination is chosen,then there should be some compensation for
our loses.
2. You should also consider that the elimination of rice farming will impose a financial hardship on the
small businesses that support rice farming. Again, a reduction in water allocation would be a better
solution rather than elimination.
3. Finally, many of us have developed wetlands to enhance our property for wildlife and hunting
leases. The waterfowl and other wildlife that migrate to and along the Gulf Coast are attracted to and
depend on these areas for food and rest. This is especially important today when our salt and
freshwater coastal marshes have not yet recovered from damage due to Hurricane Ike. Some water
should be made available for this purpose. In the present proposal this use is mentioned but allocation
rules were not described.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I am hopeful some accommodation to your plan can be
made to more fairly meet the needs of our Gulf Coast area.
Respectfully,
Jim Campion
From: Wiley Balkum [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:12 AM
To: WMP; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: water management plan
The devastation of the Highland Lakes is not the answer for the rice farmers.
The historic upper Colorado River basin, wildlife needs and canyon area has been ignored.
The destruction of one region of the state to support another region is foolish to say the least.
It is about time you people took a look at the real picture.
A new plan for the rice farmers is long over due.
They get twice the rain that Central Texas gets and have their own reservoirs nearby.
Page 56 of 250
I have been visiting the lakes since I was a child in the early 1960's. I have dreamed all of my life of living
on
Lake Buchanan and with God and my wife's help was able to make that dream a reality.
Now my water well pumps dry in 20 minutes.
It is so sad to see what is happening.
Maybe we do need a little different approach.
Wiley Balkum
Tow, Texas
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:50 AM
To: WMP
Subject: Water Plans Inadequate
To Whom It May Concern
For years I have seen the state and municipalities generate more and more water conservation
plans, regulations, watering restrictions, etc. This approach primarily deals with controling water
demand which I think will ultimately be ineffective and be a waste of money, as it seems to be
limited mostly by the Colorado River. Such an approach merely puts bandaids on the real water
problem (i.e. water shortage/supply) and delays coming up with reasonable and sound long
term solutions. I also see where plans are being developed for more reservoirs, etc. I believe
this misses the point since there appear to be sufficient reservoirs but at times these
reservoirs are nearly empty. I believe the wisest approach for the State of Texas to take is to
solve the supply problem and not merely deal with demand. Thus, the State of Texas (not
every city & town) should be looking at creating more water supply independent of the
Colorado River that can fill the existing reservoirs (man made & natural). History has shown
many ways to solve the supply problem (i.e. Roman aquaducts) by conveying water from where
it is most abundant to where it is least abundant. The Romans did this all over the world. Why
can't the State of Texas? The petroleum industry for centuries has solved the supply/demand
problems with pipelines all over the country. Why can't the State of Texas? The main reason
the supply approach has not been tried before now is because each town wastes money by
tring to solve their own water problems which has now become bigger than the LCRA, individual
towns, and bigger than the Colorado River can supply.. State of Texas resources should be
immediately found (i.e. pooled) to develop and implement a long range water supply for Texas.
Suggested sources for the State of Texas to increase water supply:
1. Mississippi River has an abundance of water. Use canals and/or pipe water to Texas.
Use solar energy for pumps.
2. Canada has an abundance of water. Parallel the Keystone Petroleum pipeline to the
Texas Gulf with a water pipeline.
3. The list of possibilities is unlimited.....
Yours truly
James W. Hoe
Austin, TX
Page 57 of 250
From: Joe Smith [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: RE: WMP
My suggestion seems simple and in the long run help everyone in the Highland lakes area retain their
value on their property, supply water for irrigation and have more water for the people in and around
the Austin area. Why doesn’t the LCRA purchase the property along the Colorado River below I10 and
build a retention lake for the irrigation farmers. Build it big enough for what you sell on an annual basis.
Since that area annually has more rainfall than the Hill Country then this is a way that this area will
collect it’s water as well as outsourcing from our lake system on an as need basis.
Dirt is much cheaper in these areas than in the Hill Country and they receive additional rainfall by being
closer to the Gulf Coast. This way if you build an additional lake you can put one of your power plants
nearby for any future plans for electricity. We all know that ERCOT was seeking additional power last
summer and that more and more people are moving into the state. Water and Power demand will only
be greater so why not do the smart thing here and think outside the box. Fortunately this area has
heavy transmission lines running throughout the area along with natural gas pipelines so that shouldn’t
be an issue. Especially with all the shale gas being developed in our area.
Understandably you will have many suggestions and complaints for our water issue. I’m looking at it
more from an economic value basis for LCRA. Either way both of these satisfy LCRA’s core business
experience, satisfy many water needs for this and lake front property owners.
Sincerely,
Joe Smith
From: Glynis Davis [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
Population has grown around Lake Travis and its time to change the water table minumum to reflect this.
Our water system has maybe 6 months left and we will have to truck water in at 10 times the cost we
pay now. If that happens we will have to shut off our water to our home and move in with family
because we will not be able to pay our water bill. Unlike the Rice Farmers we do not have insurance to
cover us in case we dont get the water we need. The old rules set in place years ago no longer apply
because of the demand for water. The population growth is not going to stop and the demand is going to
keep growing. The minumum level of Lake Travis needs to be raised significantly and permanantly.
Thank You.
Glynis Davis
Page 58 of 250
From: Wes and Tracy [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
Has any analysis been done to determine the potential benefit of modifying the flood control plans and
allow the flood control full level of Lake Travis to increase from 681 to a higher level? It looks like many
approvals would be needed given all the documents in the appendix regarding federal agreements with
Army Core of Engineers etc, but I also know that each foot of volume when the lake is full represents a lot
of water.
Wes
From: Charles Shell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:12 AM
To: WMP
Subject: Water Plan Comments
When one seeks to determine priority of water use, it would seem that the following priorities could apply
from a societal prospective.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
human consumption and sanitation – sustaining human life
Basic industry use to sustain society e.g. Power Plants
Food Production e.g. rice farming
Environmental use e.g. save the cave bug & estuary creatures
General industry use
public recreation
Private enjoyment, yard watering, private swimming pools, car washing etc.
It seems that the plan could do more to incentivize such prioritization of water usage thru rate structures
and a region wide water curtailment plans.
Could the plan do more incentivize water reuse?
Could the plan do more to incentivize firm water users to reduce water consumption and/or to utilize water
in “water wise” manner? Power plants using combined cycle technology (as opposed steam cycle like
those used in coal plants) which will use less water per useful power produced. Can rates be structured to
provide such incentives?
Could LCRA water curtailment plan be better coordinated with watering restrictions for all it’s customers?
It would seem that coordinated region (river basin) wide prioritizations of water usage to insure that
society’s needs are met for the entire region. This could for example reduce lawn watering in urban areas
like the City of Austin early enough in the year to avoid having to cut off water to farmers.
Rather than “cut off” water to farmers, could rates be increased to incentivize water consumption and
allowing the most efficient users to continue? One would expect that at some price the water consumption
under rate incentives would be the same as “cutting off”.
Page 59 of 250
On the supply side, what could be done to enhance water supplies? What about incentivizing land owners
to eliminate (ash juniper) cedar trees? Could some of the higher rates charged for low priority water
consumption e.g. lawn watering be utilized to incentivize land owners in the water shed to eliminate the
water thirsty ash juniper?
Bottom line, my advice, request, suggestions, comments are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
establish a basin wide water use/conservation prioritization
Coordinate water restrictions for all users of LCRA water, firm & non-firm alike
Use incentives in rates to encourage water wise use of water & discourage the uses that have the
least benefit to region.
Use incentives to encourage landowners to eliminate ash juniper as a competitor for water
resources.
Thanks for taking time to work on such an important & controversial issue for our region.
Sincerely,
Charles Shell
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Leonard
To: WMP
LCRA,
That is a good start but does not go near far enough to conserve the water supply.
LCRA should only sell water to the rice farmers that have already invested in water conservation by
leveling their fields.
LCRA should charge the same rate for the water used by the rice farmers as the cities pay.
Sending water for rice irrigation, or should we call it what it is - weed mitigation, should be completely
phased out.
We can easily get by without the rice but we cannot get by without drinking water. The days of the good
old boy deals for rice farmers needs to come to an end and the LCRA needs to stop hiding behind "We
are just following the approved Water Management Plan." instead of taking real action to conserve
water for the greater good.
Bob Leonard
Page 60 of 250
From: John Rhodes [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Aqueduct?
In the water plan, I did not see any mention of an aqueduct to bring water to the LCRA. It seems that
one or more aqueducts from the Mississippi River might be worth considering as Central Texas needs
more water and probably will get less in future from rainfall.
For example, the Los Angeles aqueducts, built in c1912 and 1970, have flow capacities of 485 and 290cfs
and lengths of 223 and 137 miles, respectively. Let's assume that we build an aqueduct from, say,
Natchez, to Lake Travis, having a flow capacity of 400cfs (that would entail a channel of at least 20ft
wide x 10 ft deep flowing at 2ft/sec). This flow would deliver up to 289000 acre-ft/yr if the flow were
maintained 24/7. The distance is approximately 400 miles and the elevation difference about 500 ft.
Pumps placed at various points along the route could be used to lift the water which would then flow by
gravity. There would be friction losses. How much electrical energy would be needed to lift this water
flow by, say, 1000ft? A back-of the envelope calculation indicates that about 34 MW of power would be
needed. So, about 1MWH/day would be needed to raise 1acre-ft/day by 1000ft. If the cost of electricity
is 10c/KWH, the cost comes to 31c/1000gals which is a lot less than I pay for my water. The electricity
could be "green" (wind or solar). The pumps would not need to run continuously.
These calculations look pretty optimistic...I would strongly advise that someone check them!
Sincerely,
John R. Rhodes
From: Kathy Doss (27) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:34 PM
To: WMP
Subject: Lakeside Beach in Spicewood
I have read and heard lots about our water situation.
I have not heard from the LCRA. My neighbors have had phone calls and mail from the LCRA
but not me.
What is the latest on our water supply?
My home address is 522 Songwood Drive.
Kathy Doss
Prosperity Bank
Lakeway Banking Center
1415 RR 620 South
Lakeway, TX 78734
512-261-1122 Phone
512-697-0106 Direct
512-697-0210 Fax
[email protected]
NYSE Stock Symbol: PB
Page 61 of 250
From: Scott Dabney [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: RE: Water Management Plan
The deep water intakes reinforce the fact that the farmers should be cut off—more firm water
needs.
The WMP draft is a good starting point, but definitely not a “cure”. We need more reservoirs
and ways to forcefully recharge aquifers. We also need less power dependence on watercooled coal and nuclear plants. LCRA needs more interest in desalination. More Wind power
on the Coast and/or stainless steel pipes allowing salt water to provide the cooling for
desalination plants will solve the need for more power to operate them.
Of course, lining and cleaning the irrigation canals to reduce water loss when the farmers do
get water should always be mentioned.
Thanks,
Scott Dabney
-Lake Travis Home Owner & Majority Owner / General Partner of Lake Austin Marina
To: WMP
Subject: I Support the Proposed Water Management Plan!
I agree with LCRA General Manager Becky Motal that "Water is a precious, shared and
limited resource. It is imperative that we all work together to use it as wisely as we can."
Please move forward with these changes and eliminate “open supply”.
My house in Tow Village on the upper reaches of Lake Buchanan has seen only a small stream
of water in the lake bed for virtually the last 2 years. Farming is important, but please don’t
take all of our water for the rice farmers (especially during such a severe drought)! I want my
children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy the lake in the future at our lakehouse, as I’ve
been able to do!
Thanks,
Michael Hubik
180 Tow Loop
Tow, TX 78672
Page 62 of 250
512-795-3921
Mike Hubik
Accounting Director
Dell | Corporate Accounting
office + 512 723 4445, fax + 512 283 4435
From: Mark And Tina Long [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: water
they want to build an oil pipeline from canada to texas . why not build a water pipeline from the
mississippi river somewhere above st. louis over to somewhere around the texas panhandle .it
could be 15-25 feet in diameter with pumping stations andshut off valves along the way .it would
have secondary lines comming off it to feed diffrent parts of ok. tx. az. and nm. with the floods
every spring on the mississippe and the lack of rain over here it wouldnt hurt to help fill our lakes
and take some pressure off those flooded areas over there ,and it would create a few badly
needed jobs.
From: John Rhodes [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Aqueduct? P.S.
I forgot to attach this info on the Los Angeles Aqueducts.
Los Angeles Aqueduct Facts
John Rhodes
From: Debra Grebe [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: water
We are in a unique position because we own a home in Bay City about three miles from the Colorado
River, and we also own a home in Lakeway on Lake Travis. We have watched as the lake has disappeared
from being on our property line, and our once very deep cove has disappeared. We, along with our
Page 63 of 250
neighbors, have had to pay to move our boat dock three times this year. Tragically, we have watched as
two very popular restaurants, Shades and Johnny Fins, have both closed down, resulting in lost jobs for
all of their employees. The restaurants did not close until they released water from Lake Travis for the
rice farmers' second crop. In retrospect, we feel like it was completely unfair to release water for a
second crop when doing so pretty much shut down all the restaurants and marinas on Lake Travis.
We know for a fact that rice farmers can make a good living by just doing one rice crop. The second crop
is just a bonus. About 20 years ago, someone from the LCRA spoke at the Bay City Lions Club about a
proposed reservoir in Colorado County, which would have benefited that county, along with Wharton
and Matagorda Counties. Apparently, that reservoir was never built and that was a great tragedy.
We do not feel like the people in Travis County have the responsibility to provide water for the counties
living downstream. The fact of the matter is, here in Matagorda County we receive anywhere from 4550 inches of rain per year. If we would learn to store that water, that would be ample supplies for all the
farmers. Also, it is very easy to dig wells in Matagorda County, and the farmers can get all their water
needs by digging water wells. We do not feel like Travis County has any duty to provide water for us
here in Matagorda County.
Concerned Citizens of Matagorda County
From: Bruce Wiltshire [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:48 PM
To: WMP
Subject: Water Mgt. Plan
Hi, I wanted to let you know my thoughts as per the plan that is being
developed as per the drought.
--If the restrictions are too severe, it will lend itself the damaging /killing the
beautiful landscapes/trees within the city, including in the thousands of
residential landscapes where homeowners have a large investment in their
lawns.
--I own a lawn maintenance and landscaping company here in town and we
would possibly have to layoff 10-30 of our 60 employees OR POSSIBLY
EVEN HAVE TO CLOSE DOWN, depending on the restrictions. Other
companies would also be similarly affected. The city will lose MILLIONS IN
TAX DOLLARS! Landscapes need atleast one watering day a week during
the summer.
Page 64 of 250
--The water should be shut off NOW to the rice farmers as they are using the
majority of the water. There is NO TIME TO WASTE........MUST BE DONE
NOW!!
--A plan needs to be implemented QUICKLY to develop more reserviors as
the city is only growing and the climate is POSSIBLE getting hotter.
--The city's vitality is tied to the beauty of the landscapes. If we DRY UP,
tourists will stop coming here and spending their dollars(Ripple Effect).
--People that live along the lakes should also be paying for the water they
pump out of the lakes. They are the ones that can afford it AND THEY GET
IT FREE??!!
Thanks
Bruce
From: Janece Rolfe [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 5:19 PM
To: WMP
Pass the water management plan now. We are tired of delays. Current conditions dicate no
more "business as usual." Circumstances are dire and it is time to consider the changing needs
of the Hill Country and your customers and constituents. Stop preferential treatment to rice
farmers.
Janece Rolfe
From: Paul Parker [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Proposed Water Management Plan comment
Proposed Water Management Plan comment I was surprised to read on pages 67-69 (section 4.9.4. - Lake Storage Levels) that all lake level
simulations for the interim and 2020 water management plans produce minimum lake levels that are
Page 65 of 250
significantly LOWER than any experienced during the actual historical period as indicated in graphical
form in the report and in tabular form below:
Aug 1952: Interim plan minimum 577', 2020 plan minimum 574', Historical(*) minimum 617'
Nov 1964: Interim plan minimum 593', 2020 plan minimum 593', Historical(*) minimum 639'
Nov 1984: Interim plan minimum 593', 2020 plan minimum 592', Historical(*) minimum 643'
Oct 2009: Interim plan minimum 609', 2020 plan minimum 612', Historical(*) minimum 630'
* Source: LCRA online historical lake level data tables
I expected the proposed water management plan simulations to produce HIGHER minimum lake levels
than the actual historical period so there would be a higher margin of safety for water users, particularly
the growing demand from firm water users. It appears that the proposed water management plan
produces a lower margin of safety for water users.
I applaud the LCRA for the level of effort represented by this report and all the historical background,
considerations, and logic that went into the proposed water management plan, but if it produces a
significantly lower margin of water supply safety than past experience, then there is much work
remaining to be done before water users can rely on this critical resource.
Sincerely,
Paul Parker
From: new job [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: water useage
The population of the hill country will continue to grow no doubt with or without a revised usage
plan. The issue is and will increasingly be about the priority we place on the storage and usage
of the inventory. Human consumption is a necessity and should be the number 1 concern .
There is an economic incentive also to be considered and because of the number of potential
revenue increases ( population 200,000 x 1.00 a/f = 200,000 ) rice farmers ( 100 x 1.00 = 100).
There will no doubt be a huge political price to pay if the wrong decision is made and we have a
drought that causes huge loss either of life , money or displacement of people.This is a issue
that seems to be a no brainer to me.
Page 66 of 250
From: Pat Hubik [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:10 AM
To: WMP
Subject: I support water management plan
I agree with LCRA General manager Becky. Please eliminate “open supply” .
We love the water at our lake house and for several years we have seen very little water.
Thank you very much.
Pat and Wesley Hubik
180 Tow Loop
Tow, Tx
From: Pat Hubik [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: water supply
Please eliminate open supply. We need water in the lake in front of our lake home.
Thanks.
Wesley G. Hubik
Tow, Texas
From: Sam Kana [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 12:27 PM
To: WMP
Subject: Comment on Water Management Plan
The proposal put forth by the stakeholder committee represents the negotiated best plan for all parties
involved. I would hope there not many changes in the plan prior to submission to the TCEQ.
The irrigators and other interruptible users, continue to lose water to the firm supply users during each
revision of the plan.
I feel that Run 85 has gone overboard in protecting the firm water supply, and Run 81 would better
serve as the key component of the new WMP; with two trigger dates to issue irrigation contracts, and
with open supply limits-limited only by the curtailment components of the run.
Page 67 of 250
Urgent need for off channel reservoirs has been identified by all stakeholders, and should be folded into
the WMP.
I thank you for your attention to my comments,
Sam Kana
President/CEO
The First National Bank of Eagle Lake
PO Box 247
100 Commerce St.
Eagle Lake, TX 77434-0247
Phone: (979) 234-5591, Ext. 1100
Fax:
(979) 234-5596
Cell:
(361) 772-4445
From: Libby Pinney [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: comment on revision to water management plan
I'm so glad to see LCRA taking steps to protect the levels of Lakes Buchanan and Travis.
It is depressing and maddening to see our lakes depleted in order to supply water downstream.
Please do all you can to preserve the beauty of our lakes, the recreational value and the property values
of the homes on and around the lakes.
Thanks so much,
--
Libby Pinney
Keller Williams Realty
512-258-7976 office
512-970-2606 cell
512-623-6105 fax
www.libbypinney.com
12515-8 Research Blvd. Suite 100
Austin, TX 78759
From: Susan Golden [mailto:[email protected]]
Page 68 of 250
To: WMP
Subject: Revised Water Management Plan Comments
We as home owners and supporters of the community business in the North Shore of Lake Travis, agree
that there is a need to change the policies regarding water released from Lake Travis. It is a huge
negative impact on all of us.
-Best Regards,
Susan
Hello,
I am a lakefront resident and my property value has been significantly
reduced due to the draining of Lake Travis. Honestly, I am surprised
that a better water management plan was not enacted a long time ago to
prevent such a disaster. Austin watering restrictions cost homeowner
and business a lot of money due to trees and grass not able to survive
the lack the water. Austin's reputation as a destination city has been
significantly hurt. Therefore, I support the new plan which curtails
water to farmers. I also request that a more strict plan be
implemented to keep Lake Travis at full capacity. The state should
subsidize the rice farmer for a few years to plant something else
which does not need so much vital water.
Sincerely,
Dr. Sarai
-*Paul S. Sarai M.D./M.Sc.*
*[email protected]* <[email protected]
From: Howard McCollum [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: My Water Management Plan Comment
I would like to express my enthusiastic support of the proposed water management
plan. As a Lake Travis lakefront property owner, my enjoyment and the value of my
home has been seriously damaged by the rapid loss of water level resulting from
the excess water draws for downstream rice farmers. The many property and
Page 69 of 250
business owners interests have been sacrificed for the interests of a few rice
farmers.
Thank you for your consideration,
Howard McCollum
[email protected]
17703 Breakwater
Jonestown, Tx 78645
From: komal sarai [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: I request further rice farmer water restrictions please!
Hello,
>
> I am a lakefront resident and my property value has been significantly
> reduced due to the draining of Lake Travis. Honestly, I am surprised
> that a better water management plan was not enacted a long time ago to
> prevent such a disaster. Austin watering restrictions cost homeowner
> and business a lot of money due to trees and grass not able to survive
> the lack the water. Austin's reputation as a destination city has been
> significantly hurt. Therefore, I support the new plan which curtails
> water to farmers. I also request that a more strict plan be
> implemented to keep Lake Travis at full capacity. The state should
> subsidize the rice farmer for a few years to plant something else
> which does not need so much vital water.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Komal Sarai
-*Komal Sarai, Realtor*
*www.austinluxehomes.com* <http://www.austinluxehomes.com/>
*LinkedIn: Komal Sarai*
*(512) 809-2367*
From: Margo [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: New lcra water management plan
Page 70 of 250
This is a good first step. I would also like to see a preferable operating range
for lakes Travis and Buchanan. The businesses failing due to the low lake levels
are alarming. We just lost an icon in Jonestown, True Grits restaurant. If the
spring rains due not come there will be marinas that go under. Surely we can
build a reservoir closer to the thirsty rice plantations. Why are we growing rice
in a semi arid state anyway?
Margo Mermelstein
Jonestown
Sent from my iPad
To: WMP
I would like to comment on the proposed new water plan for Lake Travis. It is certainly a step in the right
direction to revise the LCRA plan for the downstream rice farmers and limit the flow of water for a second
crop. It is unfair to cause businesses to fail or limit their hours because rice farmers want to plant twice a
year during a drought. Further more, one would have to question why they would choose to plant a water
hungry crop in a semi dry region? Surely there must be other crops which would thrive in this area, even
during a drought. Homeowners and businesses are suffering with dwindling real estate prices due to the
severely low levels in the lake and something permanent must be done. This problem surfaces every few
years. I would be very interested in hearing a reply about this from someone on the LCRA.
Thank you,
Donna Macina
7316 Admirals Park Dr
Jonestown, TX 78645
512-267-3436
From: Douglas Marshall [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Water management plan
A review of the Lake Buchanan -Travis water management plan reveals that the LCRA
does not express an interest in maintaining lake levels for the benefit of lake
residents or local businesses. However, an unintended consequence of not
striving to maintain reasonable lake levels is the loss of tax revenues due to
decline of lakefront property values. Local governments and school districts
should be considered interested parties since revenues for these public entities
are significantly affected by a decline in property values.
Page 71 of 250
Douglas W Marshall
Sent from my iPad
From: Tabitha Peterson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
I am writing to offer a comment on the Revised Water Management Plan. I want to reiterate the
importance of considering the interests of the local economy around the Highland Lakes, specifically in
the growing populations and communities of Lago Vista and Jonestown. In times of drought like those
we are experiencing, the lake is completely dry along some of our most important parks, trails, and
woodlands which support local wildlife and tourism. These communities located here also experience
economic decline due to the loss of tourism,loss of real estate sales,and sharp decline in local business
sales. Populations and business have increased in this area and must be accurately reflected in the water
management plan. As a home owner in this community raising my family here, it is important for me to
support my community. I chose to do this by creating business income in this community. My business
as well as others are greatly affected by the loss of recreational lake usage. I am asking the LCRA to
support these communities by increasing their consideration of our economic interests in maintaining
lake levels for both environmental and recreational purposes so that the people in these already
established and growing communities can survive. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tabitha Peterson
To: WMP
I am a Houston resident who owns a waterfront home in Lago Vista. I completely support the revised
Water Management Plan as there is a strong need for a change in the manner in which the LCRA allows
huge draw downs of the lake even during severe drought conditions (see 2009 and 2011). Their current
methodology is not fair to the local home owners and businesses and they do not appear to be open to
changing their ways. It seems as though they would be happy if they could sell every drop of water with
no regard for the impact to others. Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion on this important
matter.
Don Manton
Page 72 of 250
From: Pelican Point Resort [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Comments on proposed Water Management Plan.
I am in my ninth year of owning and operating a fishing camp on the North end of
Lake Buchanan in Tow. I participated for six years on the LCRA advisory panel,
served four years on the Lake Buchanan/Inks Lake Chamber of Commerce and worked
with a variety of other groups to promote the local area. My first visit to Lake
Buchanan was in 1963.
I urge you to approve the new Water Management Plan as soon as possible. This
drought has clarified the weaknesses in the current and past WMP's. I would also
suggest the criteria for defining a drought of record should be adjusted.
Specifically the 600,000 acre ft. combined storage level should be raised for the
definition and future planning.
It has been difficult to hear the LCRA pronouncement of "shared pain" during this
drought when the irrigators have received everything they wanted up to this
point. I hope the plan for curtailment this Spring does not change. Five or ten
feet of lake level elevation makes a huge difference. Firm water customer needs
should be the priority and weaknesses continue to be clarified with these low
lake levels. I realize how difficult this is for the LCRA considering all the
legislative factors but I hope the LCRA could evolve from a "we do what we are
told" to more of "this is what we think should be done" position for the long
term preservation of the precious water resource in the Colorado River Basin.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Steve Buchanan
Steve Buchanan
Pelican Point Resort
PO Box 148
Tow, TX 78672
325-379-2373
http://pelicanpointresort.com/
To: WMP
Subject: loss of water for for Texans
Page 73 of 250
You limit our water so you can give all the rice farmers and constant level lakes can stay full. This should
be stopped by the state of Texas and your control or non control taken away unless you take the right
control. John Bourke
From: PaulT [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you for the work you have done developing the draft WMP.
One area I do not understand and have grave concerns over is that I do not find
mentioned in the WMP, information regarding the impact of the BCRUA project’s
withdrawal of up to 119,000 acre-feet of water a year from Lake Travis after the
final phase is complete.
It would also be of interest to know what the impact would be to the lake levels had
this project been in operation during the current drought
I am especially critical of this project because of these communities’ seeming lack
of conservation initiatives. Cedar Park, Round Rock and Leander are still allowing
the building of residential and commercial projects which are irrigated and using
non-native and or xeriscape grounds.
Water is often running down the street drains even after multiple reports to the
cities’ Water Departments. Neighborhood Associations still require unsustainable
lawns and irrigation. Water conservation education has very little visibility, in the
very townships where water use is straining the Lake today, and will make the
burden on the Lake untenable in the future.
If the water is going to be drawn down from Lake Travis, there has to be a stronger
consequence to waste and poor strategic operations by these communities.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your feedback
Sincerely
Paul Thompson
Leander TX
Page 74 of 250
From: Liz Killmer [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: My comments on the revised WMP
Thank you for coming up with a plan. I am not technically knowledgeable of water management but have
tried to read as much as possible to learn more. I am under the impression that the current plan is a
minimum that will help so I am hope full that it will pass or be accepted "as is". We live on Sandy Creek
arm and have no water, home values are depressed and the small businesses are failing. We will
continue to support LCRA and do our best to conserve water in our everyday use. I would only suggest
that each individual water department encourage water conservation as something each responsible
citizen should do. I would avoid million dollar campaigns by LCRA for public advertising and recommend
LCRA spend LCRA funds on the actual conservation of water.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment and all of your efforts to ensure we all have water in the future.
Catherine Killmer
From: Tami Savage (29) [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
I would like to take this opportunity to voice my concern over the water management plan and the
implications it has on our community in Matagorda County. I have been to several meetings in Austin and
am quite concerned with how this will affect my community. I believe it is imperative that construction of
the reservoirs needs to begin immediately.
If and when the irrigators do not receive water it will have a devastating effect on our community. We do
not have other jobs these business people can go to in the interim. They will move and not come back!
I realize that this is a hardship on all residents up and down the basin. The lower basin receives higher
levels of rainfall and just as we have seen over the last several weeks if there had been reservoirs, we
would have been able to catch some of this run off therefore enabling us to create new supplies to offset
the reductions LCRA is imposing through the new WMP.
We are putting our trust in LCRA to create the needed reservoirs to help sustain those that are feeding
our country!!!!
Tami Savage
NMLS 584060
President
Bay City Banking Center
Prosperity Bank
1600 7th Street
Bay City, Texas 77414-5012
(979)245-4200 Telephone
(979)245-4242 Fax
Page 75 of 250
[email protected]
From: Sherry Kimbrow [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Troy Fraser; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Jimmie Don Aycock; [email protected];
Sherry Kimbrow
4640 Sunset Cliff Rd
Burnet, TX 78611
512-755-1463
I agree completely with the following comments by:
William H. Aydam
Communications Specialist
Central Texas Water Coalition
PASS THE WATER MANAGMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED AND LET US
KEEP SOME WATER IN OUR LAKES.
If Lake Buchanan goes dry, all of the lower lakes will also be in trouble. The rice farmers
can get by without a crop until it rains and the lakes fill up again. They have government
subsidies to help them, but we will have nothing.
Water Management Plan 2010-2020: Lakes Interests Positions
PASS THE PROPOSED WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN NOW!
START THE NEXT WMP AS SOON AS THE PROPOSED PLAN IS SENT TO TCEQ USING
CURRENT DROUGHT DATA, NOT JUST HISTORICAL AVERAGES!
THE NEXT WMP SHOULD BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE, NOT BIASED TOWARD RICE
INDUSTRY.
Page 76 of 250
We cannot continue to do business as usual. We are running out of time as we are running out
of water.
We have learned that while many are beginning to understand that water is critical and we are
in a MegaDrought, water management is complex. A “Big Picture” view is needed that identifies
and incorporates competing interests, such as 1) integration and optimization of surface water
and ground water, and 2) Review of existing structures that undervalue the price of water, as
well as the very large volumes of water used in the generation of electric power, from both a
hydro and coal-fired perspective.
While the rate structure is not part of the WMP, the board should create an equitable fee
structure, which would encourage water conservation. ALL water management policies should
be fair and equitable basin-wide.
The Lakes Interests agreed to the following points in the WMP:
 Using two trigger points during the year to determine if there is interruptible stored water
available for agriculture. One trigger point, January 1, would be used for the first season of rice
and June 1 for the second crop.
 Limiting open supply to 273,000 af. Open supply is the practice of not restricting interruptible
stored water available for agriculture when the lakes are above a certain combined storage
level.
 Asking firm water customers, mostly cities and industries, to reduce water use consistent
with their drought plans only after Highland Lakes' water for agriculture is restricted.
 Setting the lakes' minimum combined storage level at amount needed to supply firm water
needs for one year. 350,000 af in the WMP is TOO RISKY; lakes fought for a minimum of
650,000 af.
 Using the environmental flow criteria developed in studies completed in 2008 and using two
trigger points, January 1 and June 1, for determining in stream flow releases. The criteria were
developed to help meet the environmental needs of the river and Matagorda Bay.
 Accepting an anytime cutoff of stored water when combined storage reaches
600,000 AF
The next WMP process should begin immediately after the proposed plan is adopted to
address the points below as well as others included in our ‘Qualified Consensus’ brief:

The Economic Impact of Low Lake Levels to the Economy of the entire State of Texas
o Maintain lake levels in an operating range to support property values, businesses and
tourism
Page 77 of 250
o Incorporate lake recovery time for health, safety and recreational needs
 The Effect of Drought on the Stored Water in the Highland Lakes
o Incorporate scientific studies of past long droughts
o Correlate reduced water inflows to amounts released
o Implement Increased evaporation data related to higher temperatures and winds
 The Use of Flexible and Adaptive Management Strategies
o Utilize adaptive measures for additional curtailment of interruptible water customers in
periods of extremely low inflows to the Highland Lakes
o Define a Drought Worse than the Drought of Record
o Accurate LCRA reporting of lake-related data that use real-time
information, not averages
Jo Karr Tedder
President, CTWC
512.715.0015
-Thank You,
William H. Aydam
-Sherry Kimbrow
512-755-1463
From: sm [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
Page 78 of 250
There are brand new reports (Wed 2-1-2012) that Becky Motal and a couple LCRA Board members have
conducted secret closed door meetings on changes to the WMP proposed without the lake interest
stakeholders being present. Please comment.
S Mason
To: WMP
Subject: plan
Short and simple the current plans are gross mismanagement of the resources that were
entrusted to the LCRA to MANAGE, not sell and create profits. Over the years these lakes especially
Travis have evolved into huge recreational facilities with the business entities needed to support this. Not
only has the recreational side blossomed but the building of homes has also seen an unbelievable
following creating many dollars in property taxes. I would guess that Travis creates more dollars in
property tax revenue than any other lake in Texas. Yet it still is managed with no regard to those people
who live there. They are at the absolute bottom of the barrel when it comes to management.
Unfortunately this is not opinion but fact, all one has to do is look at the pictures on your web site of
Travis. The pictures are black and white proof!!!
I'd like you to think about LCRA as a business, your assets are the water you have in storage and
your income is the water that is expected to come into the lakes each year. Your expenses are the water
you release each year. Now think over the years as you have increased your expenses (water releases)
dramatically but still have the same income (expected water inflow) how would any person with any
business sense rationalize this scenario? I think it's pretty clear you are going to use your assets until
you finally bankrupt your business, this is exactly what is happening today. Because we can't increase
our income we need to find a way to DECREASE our expenses!!!! We can't keep expensing our assets
without income to match, otherwise we end up in the situation that we find ourselves in today.
We need a new plan that will allow us to stabilize our lake levels better and not send all our water,
(assets) downstream.
Thank you and I look forward to hearing back from you,
Ron Kilby
[email protected]
From: Shirley Montgomery [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Fwd: Water Management Plan
Page 79 of 250
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Sherry Kimbrow <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:56 AM
To: Montgomery Shirley <[email protected]>
Hit reply to all and send this to all of these folks that have a say in the Water Management Plan. Change
my name for yours.
From: Sherry Kimbrow
To: [email protected]
Cc: Troy Fraser ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; Jimmie Don Aycock ; [email protected] ;
[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
I agree completely with the following comments by:
William H. Aydam
PASS THE WATER MANAGMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED AND LET US
KEEP SOME WATER IN OUR LAKES.
If Lake Buchanan goes dry, all of the lower lakes will also be in trouble. The rice farmers
can get by without a crop until it rains and the lakes fill up again. They have government
subsidies to help them, but we will have nothing.
PASS THE PROPOSED WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN NOW!
INDUSTRY.
of water.
Page 80 of 250
 Limiting open supply to 273,000 af. Open supply is the practice of not restricting interruptible
stored water available for agriculture when the lakes are above a certain combined storage
level.
 Asking firm water customers, mostly cities and industries, to reduce water use consistent
with their drought plans only after Highland Lakes' water for agriculture is restricted.
 Setting the lakes' minimum combined storage level at amount needed to supply firm water
needs for one year. 350,000 af in the WMP is TOO RISKY; lakes fought for a minimum of
650,000 af.
 Using the environmental flow criteria developed in studies completed in 2008 and using two
trigger points, January 1 and June 1, for determining in stream flow releases. The criteria were
developed to help meet the environmental needs of the river and Matagorda Bay.
 Accepting an anytime cutoff of stored water when combined storage reaches
600,000 AF

tourism
Page 81 of 250
 The Effect of Drought on the Stored Water in the Highland Lakes
 The Use of Flexible and Adaptive Management Strategies
o Accurate LCRA reporting of lake-related data that use real-time
information, not averages
Jo Karr Tedder
President, CTWC
512.715.0015
Thank You,
William H. Aydam
-Sherry Kimbrow
512-755-1463
From: Martin Teala L [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:13 AM
To: WMP
Subject:
Page 82 of 250
Why have you sold or given our water away all summer? Independent water haulers have been filling up
their trucks all summer at the hydrant on CR 413. Now we are being asked to pay for hauling water for
our subdivision, when you have sold our water to someone else. I live at Lakeside Beach in Spicewood,
the water bill is outrageous and I don't even use the minimum, now we can't even drink it. Also, why
does the LCRA let all our water go to the Houston Rice farmers?
Teala Martin
Contact Representative
512-460-0983
[email protected]
From: tom tynan [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP NOW
PASS THE PROPOSED WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NOW!
INDUSTRY.
of water.
Page 83 of 250
Using two trigger points during the year to determine if there is interruptible stored
water available for agriculture. One trigger point, January 1, would be used for the first season
of rice and June 1 for the second crop.
Limiting open supply to 273,000 af. Open supply is the practice of not restricting
interruptible stored water available for agriculture when the lakes are above a certain combined
storage level.
Asking firm water customers, mostly cities and industries, to reduce water
use consistent with their drought plans only after Highland Lakes' water for agriculture is
restricted.
Setting the lakes' minimum combined storage level at amount needed to supply firm
water needs for one year. 350,000 af in the WMP is TOO RISKY; lakes fought for a
minimum of 650,000 af.
Using the environmental flow criteria developed in studies completed in 2008 and
using two trigger points, January 1 and June 1, for determining in stream flow releases. The
criteria were developed to help meet the environmental needs of the river and Matagorda Bay.
Accepting an anytime cutoff of stored water when combined storage
reaches 600,000 AF

tourism
 The Effect of Drought on the Stored Water in the Highland Lakes
Page 84 of 250
The Use of Flexible and Adaptive Management Strategies

Accurate LCRA reporting of lake-related data that use real-time information, not
averages
From: Bennie Haynes [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
We will never have a quality water management plan as long as there are rice farm owners on the board. This is
definitely a conflict of interest. The river is about water supply, not so others can make money!!!!!!!!
Bennie L. Haynes
Burnet, TX
From: Susan [mailto:[email protected]]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; WMP
Subject: LCRA Comments / Concerns
A couple of webpage readings about LCRA. People are smart due to internet access
they can do their own research. I found the following:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/senators-say-lcra-board-is-too-political1378344.html?printArticle=y
http://mcblogger.com/?p=6765
Page 85 of 250
http://nocoalcoalition.org/take-action/contact-list/
All of which has given me these facts:
The board members serving the southern districts are biased. You have Mr. Balas
who owns/manages his own rice farm...red flag. John Dickerson of Matagorda City
is a supporter of NO COAL COALITION....which does not want the White Stallion
to exist because of its use of coal. J. Scott Arbuckle from Wharton City who was
or is the President of Business Agri - which has interests in agriculture, which also
has a secretary by the name of Marti H. Arbuckle. Lori Berger from Flatonia, who
is a republican. Not to say it's all "political" but you can read from the articles that
it can play a roll in who the Governor appoints to these boards.
Henceforth, the "culture" of the business and the board does not serve in the good
interest of the people of the Highland Lakes Area.
LCRA taking a loss of "3 million" for postponement of payments for irrigation
customers i.e. rice farmers is ludicrous. Then wanting the residents of Spicewood
to pay for the water being trucked in. NO, LCRA has a lot of nerve.
If LCRA does not change their way of thinking, change to a new "paradigm" that is
equal to the residents of Highland Lakes area, they could see themselves being
investigated by higher ups, lawsuits. I can see a little money going under the
tables, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. Which might go up to the
Governor's office, lobbying etc. Yeah, the ole buddies club.
Also I don't see "higher ups" at all these meetings, it seems you send people under
the main supervisors who over see departments as Operations, Strategies and
operations
support.http://www.lcra.org/library/media/public/docs/about/overview/about_org
_chart.pdf
I moved to this area about two years ago. When I moved here Lake Buchanan was
pretty full but watched it fastly decrease because of the drought. It doesn't take
a rocket scientist to know when the lake is drying up, you don't release water. It
shouldn't have come to any surprise that the drought was taking it's toll on the
lakes...........which they (LCRA) should make their major concern rather than rice
farmers. Believe me rice farmers can get help from government programs if they
have a bad crop, peoples lives can't be dealt with in this situation.
Page 86 of 250
I have not heard any good comments about LCRA since I have lived here. I think
they need to work on their "public relations" skills.
Thanks for your time.
Susan E. Kocian
"The here and now is all we have, and if we play it right its all we need."~Ann
Richards
From: Jeff Park [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: management
It would very optimistic at best to consider the way LCRA has operated now for a quite some time and
especially recently, as management of public resources. I see no plan just a very short term plan for
revenue. I wonder what the revenues of LCRA have been over the last three years?
First off, virtually free water to the rice farmer is and should be a thing of the past. I know jobs and
people lives are in the balance but to rice farming in Texas in the middle of a historical drought just does
not make any sense. More recent to allow water to be release for the rice farmers second crop water
from Aug thru Oct. of last year would be considered remiss at best. To allow the Highland Lake to be
drained of nearly 1/3 of all the water in the Highland Lakes (from 51% to 36% of capacity) in the midst of
the hottest summer of record and in the middle of a extreme drought if not remiss by me might even
considered criminal.
LCRA seems to have little consideration for the public use of public resources (drinking water supply and
especially recreational use). Sure if you have plenty of water, however all indications, even by your own
meteorologists, that we were not likely to get any measurable rainfall over the last year. Even though
recently Central Texas has received much needed rain, precious little has made it’s way into the
Highland Lakes watershed. We are still in a serious or even extreme drought. It also appears LCRA has
little or no consideration of businesses on Lake Travis.
I’m a fisherman. I like to get on the water both on the Highland Lake (mainly Travis) and the Colorado
River below Austin. LCRA again seems to have little or no concern of these needs or desires. At present,
there are no public ramps available on Travis or Buchanan. I have checked with the Corp of Engineers.
Page 87 of 250
LCRA and the state/county parks could build new ramps below the current one but refuse to help or
fund these projects. When I contacted LCRA your representative just made excuses that these areas are
under State Park and Travis County Park authority. I am sure if LCRA would fund or help fund and
authorize these projects the parks would allow these ramps to be constructed and some public provide
access to these public resources. Again, the Corp of Engineers seems to indicate they could or will check
off on these projects.
As to the Colorado River below Austin, LCRA does little or nothing to provide access points provide
proper water levels to utilize the Colorado River. The water is either nonexistent (no flow so you have
to drag your kayak or canoe over numerous sand and gravel bars) or so fast (releases for the rice
farmers) that all can be done is a very fast downstream float. It impossible paddle up stream. So you
can’t go downstream and expect to be able to get back. Virtually making it of little use to most paddlers.
I have lived in Austin since 1966. In all that time I have seen the Travis near the spillway once and
historically never over (710’- Christmas of 1991) yet LCRA and the Corp of Engineers operate Travis at
681’, 33’ below the spillway. I do not understand how we can be concerned about people that build
houses on property below the published spillway of any lake. I would think LCRA and Corp should more
appropriately operating Travis around 690’. I know that would put some people underwater but this is a
LAKE with a spillway at 714’. How much more water might that provide, 15 to 25% more acre feet???
Oh, and another thing, as a fisherman, I’m interested in developing fish habit. Yet, in your current
website, LCRA is proud to announce breaking up structure that could be used as an artificial reef (similar
to how they do in the gulf). Travis was stumped out when built. All the trees were cut down to stumps,
the treetop removed, destroying all the natural structure and cover for baitfish. These baitfish promote,
sustain and promote bigger fish. LCRA should be building artificial reefs in Travis, just mark them with
appropriate buoys. Here again very little concern, understanding and forethought by LCRA of the overall
utilization of public resources.
With the growth of Central Texas, water is going to become an even more important if not already a
critical issue. There needs to be some new thought to the future and insightful thinking. Texas and
Central Texas in particular can not live in the past anymore. Central Texas can not have another last
three years of LCRA mismanagement.
Jeff Park
Austin, Texas
From: Wayne Nehring [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Public comment water management plan
Pass the plan. It's very disappointing that a meeting with stakeholders was held without all
present. 15 of 16 stakeholders agreed to terms only to have them changed by a few. As soon as
Page 88 of 250
this plan is passed, the next one needs to be started to improve upon the presently proposed plan.
With time maybe you can get it right. Next time play fair.
From: Clark, Lou [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Proposed Water Management Plan
I am in favor of the new plan. We need to keep more resources here in central Texas and decisions
regarding releases of water downstream to farmers need to be made very carefully with consideration
of all Texans who rely on this water. We cannot continue to allow Lake Buchanan and Lake Travis to
be so severely below capacity. It drastically hurts the economy here in central Texas and can threaten
our water supply as well. We need to preserve our beautiful lakes here in central Texas. It improves our
economy and quality of life.
BBVA Compass
Lou Clark
Senior Vice President - Commercial Banking
Tel. 512-419-3431 [email protected]
Branch/Building Name – Compass Plaza 1703 West 5th Street, Austin, Texas 78703
To: WMP
LCRA,
It is year 2012 and times have changed, weather patterns have
changed, technology has advanced, tons of people have moved to
central Texas and tons more will be moving here in the next 50
years, IF we have water. Things are no longer "the way they were"
and we all need to adapt to the changes, otherwise this Great
State of Texas is going to collapse in its own futility and really
become a laughing stock to other states as they take our jobs and
laugh at "those stupid cowboys in Texas who let themselves run
out of water and are now sucking dirt."
Page 89 of 250
I grew up and was raised in Minnesota, Land of 10,000 Lakes.
Those lakes are Minnesota's lifeblood - without them, MN would
not be nearly as beautiful nor the great state that it is. Central
Texas has very few lakes, we can probably count all of them on
our two hands. It would be a mistake for LCRA to let them wither
away and let them turn into a creek. Without these lakes being
in a vibrant condition, Austin would be no where special to live,
and our economy would deteriorate along with our reputation and
our tourism would greatly decline to a painful trickle. People will
not be proud to live here as they are now, nor will people or
businesses want to move here, as they do now. The pride of
Texas citizens of their state will greatly diminish.
Please pass the new WMP, and start seriously addressing the
water needs of the area you are in charge of. But please don't
empty Lakes Travis and Buchanan and let central Texas become
1/10th of its great beauty and vitality to the economy of this city
and region.
I urge you to keep levels in both of these lakes that make them
"usable", at a level that will continue to promote public safety
(they are too low to be safe to use), recreation, tourism,
businesses, jobs etc. We have boated on Lake Travis extensively
for the past 28 years..........and once Lake Travis goes below
approx. 660msl, the lake starts it's decline.
Regarding the rice farmers: They need to figure out how to grow
rice with MUCH less water, or switch to a crop that requires less
water. But they need to figure out something, because it is not
"FAIR" (for not a better word) for the rice industry to use as
much water as they do (3 times as much as all of the City of
Austin uses in one year, 70% of all the water that is let out of
Mansfield Dam) at the GREAT EXPENSE of everyone upstream.
Sincerely,
Loree and Bill Pitts
Austin, Texas
Page 90 of 250
From: Kevin Stanford [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: A message to the LCRA WMP regarding the Highland Lakes
Dear LCRA Water Management Planners,
I live on Lake Travis and have for over 25 years, so the recent drought is historic for
me personally. I would like to see some compromise with the downstream rice
farmers who (I believe) receive more than their fair share of the water that comes
from the Highland Lakes. I also understand that their contract span over 70 years.
70 years ago was fine when no one lived on the lakes and hardly anyone drew water
from it. Times have changed and the rice farmers need to understand that. BTW, they
have over 1 million dollars to fund lobbyists to support their narrow minded quest to
retain their water “rights,” even though they number a few hundred and while we
who depend on this water to survive number in the hundreds of thousands.
Please find a fair and equitable way towards a compromise that resolves both
positions. With some forward thinking ideas and good planning we can all share this
precious resource that is our Highland Lakes water.
Kind Regards,
Kevin Stanford
7006 Mountain Tr.
Austin, Tx. 78732
From: Sherri McCue [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 8:33 AM
To: WMP
Subject: New LCRA Water Management Plan
To Whom it May Concern:
I implore the LCRA to pass the proposed “Lakes Buchanan And Travis Water Management Plan
And Drought Contingency Plans” now! We can’t just wait any longer while our drought
continues. Recent rain has not even registered on the charts and we are seeing our area
waterways drying up daily. I live on Lake Travis and fear that we won’t see it back to a full level
for quite some time. According to state meteorologists, this drought has already had a serious
impact on the water supply for the whole state and will continue to do so until our aquifers can
be refilled over time (when is that going to be?).
Page 91 of 250
We have witnessed some communities that have already run out of water (most recently
residents of Spicewood, TX). Also there are water projects currently in process that will take a
significant amount of water from Lake Travis to provide water to the great Austin community,
and the Rice farmers take a huge amount of this water.
Your agency has a chance to make a huge difference for Central Texans, please do the right
thing by:



Passing this proposed management plan now!
Using current drought data to work on the next Water Management Plan. It’s
crucial that our regulatory agencies remain proactive and ahead of the curve
before it’s too late.
When writing the next water management plan, being fair to all citizens and not
give preference to Industry like the Rice farmers.
Thanks for taking the time to read this email.
Kind Regards
Sherri McCue
Geronimo St.
Leander, TX 78641
From: Bob Webbon [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 11:08 AM
To: WMP
To the Board of the LCRA.
Please pass the management plan at your up coming meeting on Feb. 22 before your staff makes
anymore back room deals usurping the previous practice of transparency for all share holders, not just
the few.
Sincerely,
Bob Webbon
304 South Chaparral
Burnet, Texas
From: Cynthia Lovin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 9:53 AM
To: WMP
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: Proposed new water management plan for Highland Lakes
I support the proposed revisions to this plan.
Page 92 of 250
http://www.lcra.org/newsstory/2012/publiccommentWMP.html
Thank you,
Cynthia Lovin
Pflugerville, TX
From: Glynis Davis [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 9:57 AM
To: WMP
Subject: SHAME ON YOU!!
Meetings not including Lakes stakeholders is just plain wrong. I am stunned that anyone who can see
how severe this drought is would even consider curtailment curves that would be less restrictive on rice
farmers. I will be paying close attention to upcoming legislative moves to start getting less biased people
on the board of the LCRA and will start writing letters to Gov. Perry and others for a major change in the
way things are currently done.
Thank you.
Glynis Davis
From: Hi Line [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 2:40 PM
To: WMP
Subject: New Water Management Plan
I believe your system of bringing together the different people who have interest in the water, is a good
system. They spent an entire year discussing and agreeing on a Water Management Plan. The
consensus was agreed upon 15 to 1. It is very important to leave the agreed upon WMP the way it was
constructed by this group, and approve it in February! We cannot wait any longer! The old WMP has
put many of our businesses, including mine, in great financial distress and some completely out of
business. If the old WMP is in effect in 2013, it will put the rest of the businesses already strained,
completely out of business. The new agreed upon WMP is a good one, please let it pass as is.
Dixie Brandon
Hi-Line Lake Resort
325-379-1065
www.hilinelakeresort.com
Page 93 of 250
From: Kerri Kraft [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 6:36 PM
To: WMP
Subject: Changes needed in LCRA's new WMP
START THE NEXT WMP AS SOON AS THE PROPOSED PLAN IS SENT TO TCEQ
USING CURRENT DROUGHT DATA, NOT JUST HISTORICAL AVERAGES!
THE NEXT WMP SHOULD BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE, NOT BIASED TOWARD
RICE INDUSTRY.
We cannot continue to do business as usual. We are running out of time as we are
running out of water.
We have learned that while many are beginning to understand that water is critical and
we are in a MegaDrought, water management is complex. A “Big Picture” view is
needed that identifies and incorporates competing interests, such as 1) integration and
optimization of surface water and ground water, and 2) Review of existing structures
that undervalue the price of water, as well as the very large volumes of water used in
the generation of electric power, from both a hydro and coal-fired perspective.
structure, which would encourage water conservation. ALL water management policies
should be fair and equitable basin-wide.

Using two trigger points during the year to determine if there is interruptible
stored water available for agriculture. One trigger point, January 1, would be used for
the first season of rice and June 1 for the second crop.

Limiting open supply to 273,000 af. Open supply is the practice of not
restricting interruptible stored water available for agriculture when the lakes are above a
certain combined storage level.

Asking firm water customers, mostly cities and industries, to reduce water
use consistent with their drought plans only after Highland Lakes' water for
agriculture is restricted.

Setting the lakes' minimum combined storage level at amount needed to
supply firm water needs for one year. 350,000 af in the WMP is TOO RISKY; lakes
fought for a minimum of 650,000 af.
Page 94 of 250

Using the environmental flow criteria developed in studies completed in
2008 and using two trigger points, January 1 and June 1, for determining in stream flow
releases. The criteria were developed to help meet the environmental needs of the river
and Matagorda Bay.

Accepting an anytime cutoff of stored water when combined storage reaches
600,000 AF
The next WMP process should begin immediately after the proposed plan is
adopted to address the points below as well as others included in our ‘Qualified
Consensus’ brief:

The Economic Impact of Low Lake Levels to the Economy of the entire State
of Texas
o
Maintain lake levels in an operating range to support property values,
businesses and tourism
o
Incorporate lake recovery time for health, safety and recreational needs

The Effect of Drought on the Stored Water in the Highland Lakes
o
Incorporate scientific studies of past long droughts
o
Correlate reduced water inflows to amounts released
o
winds
Implement Increased evaporation data related to higher temperatures and

The Use of Flexible and Adaptive Management Strategies
o
Utilize adaptive measures for additional curtailment of interruptible water
customers in periods of extremely low inflows to the Highland Lakes
o
Define a Drought Worse than the Drought of Record
o
Accurate LCRA reporting of lake-related data that use real-time information,
not averages
Thank you,
Kerri Kraft
Page 95 of 250
From: Mike Madden [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:51 AM
To: WMP
Please Pass the WMP NOW
T.M. Madden
333 Coventry Rd
Spicewood, Texas 78669
From: Mike Morgan [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
I support adoption of the WMP, though it is a far cry from what I believe residents and owners in the
Highland Lakes areas have a right to expect. A new WPA should be commenced as soon as possible and
this one should be fair and equitable to all parties and not so slanted towards the Rice Farmers. It
should reflect recognition of the economic impact of low lake levels on the statewide economy and a
few wealthy and powerful rice farmers should not be exempt for the effects of drought while many,
many working people struggle because of it. Minimum storage levels must take into account the risks of
the unusual weather patterns that can make the prior minimum levels imprudent. Thank you for your
consideration of these and other comments you will receive. Mike Morgan 111 Point Loop, Burnet
Texas
From: Mindy Miller Luthro [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Attn: Becky Motal
Dear Becky Motal,
I read the article in the Austin Statesman and I'd like to respond.
I'm a resident on Lake Travis. We usually have 45 feet under our
dock, but our dock has been on dirt since July of last year. I do not
know why we pay water front taxes, when we are not water front the
majority of the year. I'm aware that there are agricultural and
environmental needs of various people and groups downstream, but the
days of having an "open supply" to rice farmers is behind the times.
Page 96 of 250
I've never written a letter to the LCRA regarding this subject, but I
think it's time to speak out. I'm encouraged by the new plan that has
stricter guidelines for water releases to the rice farmers. I think
doubling the water reserves in Lake Travis and Buchanan is the
responsible thing to do. I'm also in support instituting the
curtailment policy immediately.
I'm disheartened when people say that there are too many rice farmers
on the board for this new plan to ever pass. If there is something
else the residents can do, in the form of more letters or by showing
up at a meeting or vote, please pass along that information.
Sincerely,
Mindy Miller
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:06 PM
To: WMP
Subject: Get the WMP passed
I have been to several meetings about the water issues around the
lakes. We have put in a 2500 gallon water tank because our well
wasn't able to keep up with our use. We are very careful with our
water and know the importance of it.
The WMP is not perfect, but better than what has happened in the past.
It looks like you don't take into consideration what the rain
preditions are going to be on the contracts you make. Please use some
common sense in the use of the water. I don't want to see other
cities dealing with loss of water like Dripping Springs is doing right
now because of the mismangement of their well.
Sincerely Frances Morgan
111 Point Loop
Burnet, TX 78611
From: Stephen spindler [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
Page 97 of 250
Please follow your original plan and process and do not allow the tweaks for the rice farmers. The need
to prevent the total loss of drinking water outweighs the needs of the rice farmers. As they said in the
beginning, they expected the curtailment of water and they have crop insurance for that purpose.
Irene Spindler
Lago Vista, TX
From: Jerry Kramer [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: LCRA's Water Management Plan
Please pass the LCRA's Water Management Plan that should come before
the board on Feb. 22, 2012.
You owe this to all in the Highland Lakes area.
It's time the LCRA starts managing our water, not just selling for the
sake of selling.
Rice farmers paying $6 when others pay $151 for water is simply not
managing OUR business needs.
Jerry Kramer
400 Bedford Dr
Spicewood, TX 78669
[email protected]
From: Dana J. Martin [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: The Water Plan approval process...
Dear LCRA Board,
Please approve the Plan as written. If the lake has 1.2 Acre feet of water
the rice farmers can certainly get their share, but to squabble over 200K acre
feet... it’s ridicules. Please... let’s get going on this, you have the power to
tell them what they will have to settle on for once. Then let’s get on with
teaching all users to conserve and come up with more ways to use grey
water.
Thank you for your time in this grave drought situation.
Page 98 of 250
Dana Martin
Dana J. Martin
Lake Friends Realty, Inc.
www.LakeFriends.com
(512) 789-1221
From: Steve Peek [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Karen Bruett
Subject: Violated the Texas Open Meeting Act and the public trust
So the 4 key stakeholder groups meet for 18 months and arrive at a concensus WMP, which is a
remarkable accomplishment. Then LCRA management then decides to meet behind closed doors in
clear violation of the Texas Open Meeting Act with the only the two stakeholder groups generally
opposed to changing the WMP and as a result of that meeting the previous concensus based plan is
changed in their favor.
Little wonder the LCRA has lost the public trust.
I wonder if the AG's office would agree that your private meeting should have been public.
Steve Peek
Spicewood, TX
From: Jackie Yancey [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: NEW WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Importance: High
Please pass the new Plan ASAP (as written)!
Jackie Yancey, Escrow Officer
Central Texas Land Titles, Inc.
101 Hwy. 281 N., Ste. 101
Marble Falls, Texas 78654
P: 830-693-5511
Page 99 of 250
F: 830-693-2010
M: 512-294-0096
[email protected]
www.ctlt.net
From: Don Morris [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE PLAN
Please pass the plan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don Morris
345 coventry rd
spicewood texas
From: Dwight [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Don't lower the threshold
I urge you to not lower the threshold from 1.2 million to 1 million for the cutoff of water to the rice
farmers. There is no need to sacrifice for the hundreds of thousands in order to benefit for a few rich,
politically connected rice farmers. Don’t let their money and political clout influence you in easing the
restrictions that were previously agreed to.
From: Choffel, Ken [mailto:[email protected]]
To: David Wheelock
Subject: Review of DRAFT WMP
David,
Just a heads-up, I was reviewing LCRA’s new DRAFT WMP and noticed that the figure on page 4-9 (see
attached) does not match the text on Page 4-8.
Ken
Page 100 of 250
KEN CHOFFEL
TX-PE (45686)
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Senior Vice President
4401 West Gate Blvd. Ste. 400 | Austin, TX 78745
512.912.5131 | c: 512.913.5764
[email protected] | hdrinc.com
TBPE Firm No. F-754
Follow Us – Facebook | Twitter | YouTube
Page 101 of 250
Page 102 of 250
From: Jim Schwendinger [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Schwendinger Jim & Jane
Subject: LCRA Draft Water Plan: Something Smells!
After far too long a period where the LCRA behaved as an extension of the rice
farmers lobbying interest I had gained some hope under process used to create the
new draft water plan. It was the product of a transparent process with all
constituents involved with an understanding of our water reality. We must act to
preserve this precious commodity, not view it as an entitlement to a few rice
farmers who seek weed control.
This most recent news that a subset of stakeholders met on Jan. 31st to seek to
amend the draft plan smells of corruption. Stick with the process you started
with - it has worked thus far in constructing a workable plan. You will loose any
creditability generated thus far.
We are LCRA bond holders so we have a stake in the outcome but we expect ethical
behavior focussed on addressing the needs of all stakeholders in a fair, above
board manner. Do not regress to the old back room practices.
Failure to address these fundamental issues will jeopardize the LCRA's authority
to guide our water future.
Jim Schwendinger
Sent from my iPhone
From: Ed Parsons [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Rebecca Klein (LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA); Lori Berger (LCRA);
John Franklin (LCRA); Jett Johnson (LCRA); Sandy Kibby (LCRA); Thomas Martine (LCRA); Ray Gill
(LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); Buddy Schrader (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA);
Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: TO PASS THE WMP PLAN!
Please Pass The WMP!
Thank you.
Ed Parsons
Page 103 of 250
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/proposed-tweaks-to-lcra-water-plan-irk-some2155161.html?printArticle=y
From: D Flunker [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Water Plan for Highlands Lakes
To whomever it may concern,
Please pass the plan as written prior to January 31st, 2012.
Sincerely,
Daniel Flunker
From: Stephen spindler [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
Since the wmp has been significantly changed from the draft, I believe that you need to extend the
comment period for those who did not attent the unpublicized meeting.
Irene Spindler
From: Christine Daenzer [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass original plan
The original draft of the WMP is not an answer to our prayers, but better than it was. Unfortunately, an
article in the Statesman shows that you are proposing to change that plan in favor of the rice farmers,
again! Why not, for once, tweak the plan in favor of the people of Central Texas who are in jeopardy of
Page 104 of 250
running out of precious drinking water, the Highland Lakes, which need to be left alone to refill and
rejuvenate from the horrible and continuing drought and finally, the wildlife which have lost their homes
and habitat. Your irresponsible management of the lakes over the last few years has left a devastating
impact on all of us. Please make every effort to protect our future and for now, pass the original plan.
Thank you,
Martin & Christine Daenzer
Burnet, TX
From: Mindy Miller Luthro [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Re: Attn: Becky Motal
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/proposed-tweaks-to-lcra-water-plan-irk-some2155161.html
LCRA,
The above article illustrates exactly what I was referring to when it
comes to the rice farmers...why do they get such special treatment?
We've honored our original agreement with them for decades. Times
have changed. Austin is a thriving growing city that has needs for
the water. In the current agreement, they aren't being cut off, but
weened off...and they still want more. I actually think the current
proposed agreement gives too much to the rice farmers (I think
environmental needs should be a higher priority than rice farmers
needs), but I was happy to see a step in the right direction of
weening them off.
I was happy to see there was an impact study done on the economic
impact that the drought and mismanagement of the water had on the
highland lakes recently - devastating businesses, jobs and home values
in the area. This agreement is fair to the rice farmers...too fair in
my opinion and it makes me angry that they still want more. I'm ready
to take action and I'll keep writing letters until I see an
opportunity to get involved and have a real impact on this situation.
Mindy Miller
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:55 AM, WMP <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Mindy:
>
> Thank you for your comments on LCRA's proposed Water Management Plan for lakes
Buchanan and Travis. LCRA will compile all comments and present them to the Board
of Directors prior to the Feb. 22 meeting where the Board may consider the plan.
>
Page 105 of 250
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
LCRA
-----Original Message----From: Mindy Miller Luthro [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Attn: Becky Motal
Dear Becky Motal,
I read the article in the Austin Statesman and I'd like to respond.
I'm a resident on Lake Travis. We usually have 45 feet under our
dock, but our dock has been on dirt since July of last year. I do not
know why we pay water front taxes, when we are not water front the
majority of the year. I'm aware that there are agricultural and
environmental needs of various people and groups downstream, but the
days of having an "open supply" to rice farmers is behind the times.
I've never written a letter to the LCRA regarding this subject, but I
think it's time to speak out. I'm encouraged by the new plan that has
stricter guidelines for water releases to the rice farmers. I think
doubling the water reserves in Lake Travis and Buchanan is the
responsible thing to do. I'm also in support instituting the
curtailment policy immediately.
I'm disheartened when people say that there are too many rice farmers
on the board for this new plan to ever pass. If there is something
else the residents can do, in the form of more letters or by showing
up at a meeting or vote, please pass along that information.
Sincerely,
Mindy Miller
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Patricia Gerino
To: WMP
Subject: Approve the Plan Water Management Plan as written!!!!!!!!!!! Our voices are to be
heard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Approve the Plan Water Management Plan as written!!!!!!!!!!!
Our voices are to be heard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Patricia Gerino
RIdge Harbor
Page 106 of 250
From: Bart Fields [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Board Members,
As a resident of the Ridge Harbor community in Spicewood, I am very concerned about the long term
effects of the drought and LCRA's policy as it pertains to my community. I urge you to pass the WMP as
presented on January 24 without the further "tweaking" that took place without all stakeholders being
present.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bart Fields, Resident
From: Ed Hanel [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: water plan
Please pass the new water plan without delay, and without the newly proposed "tweaks" that benefit rice
farmers at the expense of lake residents.
Thank you,
Ed Hanel
Windermere Oaks, Lake Travis
From: Rusty Johnson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: POA President's Perspective on the WMP
As President of the Ridge Harbor POA, an affluent gated community of 200 homes on
Lake Travis in Spicewood Texas, I have become quite aware of the efforts LCRA has
made to include all stakeholders in the development of the proposed Water
Management Plan (WMP). So when I learned that the LCRA Board delayed the
scheduled vote on this plan at its January meeting, and then, just this past
week, met behind closed doors with a small group of the original stakeholders, I
was shocked. And, when the result of that closed door meeting was to
significantly alter the trigger level for a second release downstream, which only
benefits the parties in the closed door meeting with LCRA, I then became angry.
Page 107 of 250
Simply put, this sort of impropriety cannot be tolerated in the state-sanctioned
groups established to manage our resources.
I strongly urge you to vote, at the February LCRA Board meeting, in support of
the WMP that was sanctioned by all stakeholders.
Regards,
Rusty Johnson, President
Ridge Harbor POA
512.658.0589
From: Steve & Debbie Peek [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Comments - Approve the original concensus version, not the "tweaked" version
Working in conjunction with the LCRA the Highland Lakes stakeholders spent 18 months coming up with
a concensus Water Management Plan that was acceptable to all 4 groups of stakeholders. With vastly
different priorities it was an amazing accomplishment that the Agriculture, Firm Water Users,
Environmentists, and The Lakes stakeholders could reach this concensus.
The original concensus version of the WMP is the one that must be approved. To approve the
version that has been changed during an LCRA closed door meeting which benefits only the Agriculture
stakeholders would be a serious breach of the public trust.
I trust that you will do the right thing for all the citizens of Texas and approve the original concensus
version which moves toward equality of water distribution within the Highland Lakes and Colorado River
region.
From: Knutson, Kristin [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Knutson, Kristin
Subject: LCRA vote on Water Managment Plan - public feedback
It has come to my attention that the WMP was changed after being accepted by the Agriculture, Firm
Water Users, Environmentalists, and the Lakes stakeholders. These changes were made without
approval of all stakeholders and therefore this is a breach of due process and of public trust.
Please make equality of water distribution the priority and do not cater to and give advantages to one
stake holder over others. A consensus was achieved and should be respected, therefore the original
consensus version should be approved.
Page 108 of 250
Best regards,
Pat and Kristin Knutson - Home owners of former lakefront property along the Pedernales River
931 Lake Shore Drive
From: Trish David [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP; Timothy Timmerman (LCRA)
Cc: 'Les Moncus'
Subject: Approve the water plan
As residents of Spicewood in Burnet county we strongly urge the approval of the Water Management
Plan as outlined. Further delay of approval doesn’t provide benefit to any of the stakeholders involved.
Let’s get some benefit from the 16+ months of work so many people have put in to dateSincerely,
Les Moncus
Patricia Moncus David
620 Vista View Trail
Spicewood, TX 78669
From: Gene & Kathy Blanchard [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
PLEASE approve the Water Management Plan as it is currently written.
Gene and Kathy Blanchard
Ridge Harbor subdivision
-HAVE AIRSTREAM WILL TRAVEL
Gene & Kathy Blanchard
118 Quail Run
Ho: 830-798-2215
Gene Cell: 713-301-7244; Kathy Cell: 713-301-2926
Email: [email protected]
Our Travel BLOG: http://have1airstreamwilltravel.blogspot.com/
Page 109 of 250
From: Jacque [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Original Consensus must be approved
The original consensus version of the WMP is the one that must be approved. To approve the
I trust that you will do the right thing for all the citizens of Texas and approve the original consensus
region.
Sincerely,
Jacque Barton
From: Meador, Jennifer [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Water Management Plan: VOTE ORIGINAL CONCENSUS PLAN
LCRA,
region.
Thank you,
Jennifer Meador
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Comments: approve the original concensus version!!
Page 110 of 250
The original concensus version of the WMP is the one that must be approved. To approve the version
that has been changed during an LCRA closed door meeting which benefits only the Agriculture
region.
Elaine Kubinski
1119 Lakeshore Drive
I vote!
From: Bill Swanson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP; Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Rebecca Klein (LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA); Lori Berger
(LCRA); John Franklin (LCRA); Jett Johnson (LCRA); Sandy Kibby (LCRA); Thomas Martine (LCRA); Ray
Gill (LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); Buddy Schrader (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA);
All:
I am a property owner in Spicewood Texas and urge you to pass the Water Management Plan.
William E. Swanson
From: Pam Penick [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: LCRA proposal to allow more water to rice farmers
To Whom It May Concern,
I'm writing to express my dismay and extreme disappointment that LCRA is suddenly
proposing to lower the cutoff point that was previously agreed upon, allowing
rice farmers in south Texas to get more water from the Highland Lakes. The rice
farmers had agreed to the previous limits, as had other stakeholders, and
changing things around now, especially when the drought has NOT broken and Austin
and other cities are faced with extreme watering restrictions, is irresponsible.
Page 111 of 250
I urge the board to stick with the previously agreed upon plan and keep the
cutoff level as is. The rice farmers have gobbled up more than their share of the
Highland Lakes water already.
Sincerely,
Pam Penick
512-372-8929
Austin, TX
From: Cat Amador-Locher [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Rice Farmers
I am an Austin resident and very opposed to continuing providing water for the rice farmers. I am asking
that you please stick to the plan you proposed and omit any "tweaks" to it!
Catherine Amador Locher
16004 Agua Vista
Austin, TX 78734
-Cat
http://amlofarms.blogspot.com/
From: Thomas Clark [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Approve the Original Concensus Water Management Plan at Feb. 22nd Hearing
Dear LCRA Board of Directors,
I am writing as a resident of Spicewood, TX to urge you to vote in favor of the consensus Water
Management Plan that was agreed upon a few months ago by the Agriculture, Firm Water Users,
Environmentists, and The Lakes stakeholders. This plan preserved enough of the interests of each of the
users without favoring any one group and put Lake Travis and the other Highland Lakes on a path
towards recovery. I urge you to approve that version.
I have become aware that the LCRA recently held a closed door meeting with only the Agriculture
stakeholders and made changes that only benefitted that group. I hope you will agree that Agriculture is
Page 112 of 250
no longer the primary beneficiary of water rights from the Highland Lakes and that their version should not
be adopted. The economic damage to recreation and tourism from disproportionately allocating water to
farming far outweighs the GDP benefit from the agriculture in this case. Please approve the original
concensus version which moves toward equality of water distribution within the Highland Lakes and
Colorado River region.
Thank you,
Thomas Clark
1137 Lakeshore Dr.
Spicewood, TX
To: WMP
Subject: (no subject)
Please pass the WMP plan.
Jon Heine (property owner) Windermere Spicewood,Tx.
From: Samuel S Alexander [mailto:[email protected]]
Cc: Janice Coons
Subject: PASS THE WMP PLAN!
To All Concerned: I implore you to pass the WMP Plan.
Windermere Oaks, Spicewood, Burnet County, Lake Travis, Texas resident,
Sam Alexander
610 Coventry Road
Alexander Design Associates
(o) 830.693.2617
(c) 281.235.2750
Page 113 of 250
[email protected]
To: WMP
To the LCRA organization,
As a property owner on Lake Travis -- we expect the proposed water management plan to be passed, as
the only viable and responsible option available at this time.
To not pass this plan would show complete irresponsibility and lack of fiduciary duties to your
organization.
Take a stand -- do the right thing.
Charlene & Carl Friedsam
347 Coventry Lane
6 Sissinghurst
San Antonio, Texas 78209
210.829.1375 (home) 210.823.2605 (cell)
210.829.5059 (fax)
From: Lauren Daenzer [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Stick to original draft- save our water
I'm writing this to ask that you stick to the original drafted plan to avoid sending what little water we
have to the rice farmers. My sole concern is the availability of water in the future for my children.
Thank you in advance for your consideration!
Lauren Daenzer
Page 114 of 250
From: Joyce Smith [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Wmp Plan
I live on Lake Buchanan and, even though this plan is far from being perfect, it
is heading In the right direction for managing our precious resource for all in
the basin area.
Thank you,
Joyce Smith
Joyce Smith, CPA, Consultant
Atchley & Associates, LLP
6850 Austin Center Blvd, Ste 180
Austin, Tx 78731
Office phone 512-346-2086
Cell 512-799-7482
[email protected]
www.atchleycpas.com
Sent from my iPad
From: Joe Moritz [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: "PASS THE WMP PLAN!"
PASS THE WMP PLAN!
I own a home in Spicewood Beach, but live in Austin. The home in Spicewood Beach is for weekends.
Thanks,
Joe Moritz
Page 115 of 250
From: MOsowski [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: The WMP
I support the WMP.
I do not support the compromises to the plan of January 31, 2012. You should not have
had this meeting without all the stakeholders present.
I am a business owner on Lake Buchanan, employing 7 hardworking people, and the
lack of water in the lake has severely affected our retail traffic. Bring back the water; we
want to stay in business and keep people working.
Marie Osowski
From: Mark McClain [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Plan
To Whom It May Concern:
As a Lake Travis homeowner, I am asking for the LCRA to pass the WMP Plan as originally drafted. After
putting together a well-balanced group of stakeholders, it’s not clear why a sub-group of those
stakeholders would be allowed to recommend a change to a plan that was worked out by all.
Thank you for accepting input directly from the taxpayers whose lives are most directly impacted by
these decisions.
Best regards,
Page 116 of 250
Mark McClain
CEO & Founder - SailPoint
Office: 512.346.2000
Mobile: 512.656.8784
[email protected]
From: John Gordon [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Comments - Approve the original concensus version, not the "tweaked" version
region.
John B. Gordon
[email protected]
+1-512-775-5895
From: Shayne Berry [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
Please past the WMP plan.
Shayne Berry 713-299-9926
Page 117 of 250
From: Kathy Winkler [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP without the recent "tweaks"
I’m a waterfront lot owner on Lake Travis. I encourage you to pass the WMP without the recent
tweaks. Pass the WMP that the stakeholders agreed to in January.
Kathy
Kathy Winkler
214-673-8326
From: Tommy Worsham [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Rebecca Klein (LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA); Lori Berger (LCRA);
Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA); WMP
Subject: Please Pass the WMP Plan
Dear LCRA Board Members,
As a concerned homeowner in Spicewood, I am respectfully asking for your consideration and
vote to approve the water management plan for our lakes. The last few years have been very
troubling with our community wells and lakes barely able to keep up with our water needs. The
thought that LCRA was recently considering a commitment to sell large quantities of water to
San Antonio sends chills down my spine. We desperately need a plan to manage our water that
provides more cushion than our current situation. Please pass this proposed water management
plan as the first step to insure that lake area residents and others are not left high and dry.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Worsham
Coves on Lake Travis
From: LouAnne [mailto:[email protected]]
Page 118 of 250
To: ";"
Subject: Fw: WMP PLAN
PLEASE PASS THE WMP PLAN!
LouAnne Opitz
Office 512.266.2880
[email protected]
www.NaturesBasicsUS.com
Creating Jobs for America by teaching wellness, purpose, and abundant living.
From: Sherry Kimbrow [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN!!!!!!
Importance: High
It is of vital importance to pass the WMP without giving in to any special interest groups trying to get
more than their fair share of the water.
Sherry Kimbrow
4640 Sunset Cliff Rd.
Burnet, TX 78611-3144
Home: 512-756-9358
Mobile: 512-755-1463
Fax: 512-756-9377
[email protected]
To: WMP
Subject: wmp
PASS THE WMP >>>>>>>>>>>>>PLEASE
Page 119 of 250
From: Tom Hannafin [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP Plan
To the LCRA and the LCRA Board:
“Pass the WMP Plan”
Thomas J. Hannafin
522 Coventry Road
From: Ron Curry [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Leave the draft plan alone
When you put the rice farmers ahead of the thousands of people who live in the Lake areas and enjoy
access to the lakes, you are creating another reason for people to retire elsewhere. High property tax
and low lake levels will drive people away.
Please keep the plan as written and publicized.
Ron Curry
Spicewood, Texas
From: Mike Moerbe [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: water vote
Pass the WMP Plan:
Page 120 of 250
From: Noel Volpe [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Please pass the WMP Plan!!!!!
Please pass the WMP Plan. Thanks for reading my email!
n
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
PASS THE WMP.....PASS THE WMP.....PLEASE PASS THE WMP.
GENE EHLER
BURNET, TX
From: Delbert Ottmers [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
(LCRA)
Subject: PASS WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
LCRA,
PASS
THE WATER MANAGEMENT
PLAN!
DEL & DIANNE OTTMERS
Page 121 of 250
The major changes being proposed are summarized in the plan's executive summary. Among
them:
This point seems silly, why waste large amounts of water that flood our bays and damage our piers and
boat houses. When the lakes get filled to capacity you will be forced to release water during times of
heavy rains, we understand the releases might not be timed correctly for the farmers, but those times that
it will benefit both parties, it seems putting this language in the plan doesn’t help anyone. Please remove
it.

Eliminating "open supply," which is the practice of making unlimited water from the Highland
Lakes available for downstream agriculture when the lakes are above a defined trigger point. In
the future, the amount of stored water available from the lakes for the downstream agricultural
operations would be capped at all times.
We believe that the date to determine the crops should stay flexible; we believe that a deadline of March
1st is a better method to have enough water for a crop and the firm water customers.

Using two trigger points during the year to determine how much stored water from the lakes is
available for agriculture, mostly downstream rice farming. One trigger point, Jan. 1, would be
used for the first rice crop and a second, June 1, would be used for the second crop. The current
plan contains only a Jan. 1 trigger point.
This point is inconsistent with good common sense. We should always work toward conservation. There is
no reason to allow anyone to waste water. We should always be in some form of conservation. We
understand that some of the drought plans calls for more stringent measures, then reword the plan to say
“ we should always conserve water when we can but when it is determined that the firm customers will
restrict their customers from a normal task that water will be curtailed from the interruptible customers.
The use of this resource should not be treated differently due to price.

Asking firm water customers, mostly cities and industry, to reduce water use consistent with their
drought plans only after Highland Lakes water for agriculture is restricted. Current practice is to
ask firm customers for voluntary conservation before agricultural water is restricted. Firm
customers pay considerably more for their water than farmers and other "interruptible" customers
pay.
We support this approach; it is consistent with the changing population and economies.

Using two different projected future demand levels in the new plan to set triggers based on the
amount of water used by cities and industry. The current plan is based on a single demand
projection looking 10 years in the future. Using two levels is a more adaptive way to look at
expected water needs. This new approach responds to actual growth in water use and could make
more water available for agricultural needs until it is needed by cities and industry.
We support this concept, it is very important that we do no harm to our environment.
Page 122 of 250

Incorporating new scientific studies that better reflect the needs of the river and bay environment.
From: John Tubbs [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
From: Londa, Jeffrey C. [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
Pass the WMP Plan Immediately.
Jeff Londa
2909 Marina Shores Dr
Spicewood
From: D Flunker [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP plan!
Thank you.
Daniel Flunker
From: Roland Adams [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
LCRA Board,
Page 123 of 250
I would like to express my opinion that the WMP that is coming up for a vote
needs to be passed and following the passing of that WMP a new effort needs to be
started to on a brand new WMP that is more in line with our current drought and
economic issues gripping central Texas. The urgency that these two items need to
be handled is paramount to the people that live and work around Lake Travis and
Lake Buchanan. If you would care to get a first hand account of how the lower
lake levels have effected a resident and business manager, please feel free to
contact me at 512-266-1800.
Sincerely,
Roland Adams
GM, Hurst Harbor Marina and Crosswater Yacht Club
Board Member, Highland Lakes Group and Marina Association of Texas
From: Rhonda Cochran [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Plan
Dear Sirs,
Please pass the current water management plan at your upcoming meeting. I am a Highland Lakes
resident and believe it is imperative that we get a handle on this situation in a cooperative manner. I
appreciate the opportunity to submit this request.
Blessings,
Rhonda Cochran
Office Manager
Anderson Dental Clinic
(512) 264-9977 office
(512) 903-5886 cell (anytime)
[email protected]
From: Bob & Cindy Richards [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Page 124 of 250
Subject: WMP
While I am not pleased with all aspects of the WMP draft, it seems to be a reasonable compromise with
all the stakeholders involved. Please pass the WMP plan as written in the draft at your February 22nd
Board Meeting and do not alter the 2nd crop trigger points from the original draft.
Regards
Bob Richards
From: Tom Bernhardt [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Cc: Pam Bernhardt
Subject: Proposed revision to the LCRA Water Management Plan
I just read the proposed revision (linked below) to the LCRA water management plan and it makes a
tremendous amount of sense. This is something we need to do, and now! The negative economic
impact and danger to our lives with the current water management policies are enormous and need to
be changed fast.
Please act quickly and implement this immediately. Time is precious.
Tom Bernhardt
512-300-0288
410 Spiller Ln
Austin, TX 78746
3508 Kahala Sunset Dr.
Spicewood, TX. 78669
Spicewood, TX. 78669
From: Ahoy [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Undisclosed recipients
Subject: Volente Boat Club Asks You To Protect Your Water - Extremely Important!
Page 125 of 250
Ahoy Lake Stakeholders,
Many of us have felt the effects of the drought: being unable to wash your car at your home,
being unable to launch your boat, being restricted on when you can water your lawn, or, if you live in
Spicewood Beach, being limited to taking a bath on “special occasions!”- as prescribed by the LCRA.
Many business owners on Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan have experienced deep financial impacts,
some going out of business completely. For those who own lake-front property, you have seen your
property values decrease by as much as 15% and some of you do not even have lake access anymore! As
someone who is directly affected by the management of our water resources, it is important to SPEAK
OUT, by letting the LCRA and your local & state representatives know how you feel and have been
effected by this crisis.
The LCRA is taking public comment on the proposed revision to the Water Management Plan
for lakes Buchanan and Travis. Comments can be submitted by email to [email protected] until Feb. 9.
Members of the public can comment on the plan in person – at the Feb. 21 LCRA Water Operations
Committee meeting and the Feb. 22 LCRA Board of Directors meeting. LCRA's Water Management Plan
determines how water is allocated from the lakes that serve as the region's water supply reservoirs.
Read more about the plan. Please comment to LCRA at [email protected] on the water management plan
in any way you wish BEFORE FEB. 9. Many of you may be overwhelmed with what to say and where to
start, so I have attached the main points to this email, that will be addressed on behalf of the Central
Texas Water Coalition or CTWC. This organization is heading the effort to pass the WMP. Go to their
website at http://www.ourwater-ourfuture.com/#! for the latest news on this important issue.
Our current situation is not due to the drought alone; the LCRA’s water management decisions
have had a huge impact. If this drought continues, Spicewood Beach is only the FIRST community to face
a water crisis. Please know that there is something you can do. I think it's time for everyone to send an
email, write a letter and make a phone call to your elected representatives and LCRA Board Members.
Please forward this email to anyone you know who would be concerned.
Sen. Fraser: [email protected]
Sen. Watson: [email protected]
Rep. Workman: [email protected]
Rep. Aycock: [email protected]
Rep. Hilderbran: [email protected]
Rep. Howard: [email protected]
Rep. Larson: [email protected]
Rep. Schwertner: [email protected]
Candidate Marsha Farney: [email protected]
The contact information for all LCRA Board Members is also attached
For more information, articles, pictures, & graphs, go to http://www.ourwater-ourfuture.com/#!
Thanks for your support,
Peyton
Page 126 of 250
From: Karyn Buchanan [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
(LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA); Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Ray
Gill (LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); Buddy Schrader (LCRA)
Subject: Water Mgt Plan
I am asking you to please pass the plan. Change is needed asap.
Thanks
Karyn
From: Sheri Taylor [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
"PASS THE WMP PLAN!"
Sheri Taylor
REO Specialist
2010 Double Centurion® Producer
Century 21 Summit
896 Summit Street, Suite 105
Round Rock, Texas 78664
TFree: 800-776-1639
Office: 512-244-9500 ext 219
From: Caroline Homer [mailto:[email protected]]
Page 127 of 250
To: WMP
Subject:
I'm writing in opposition to the compromises in the draft water plan for managing lakes Travis and
Buchanan which would ease water cutbacks on rice farmers. According to a recent Austin AmericanStatesman article, these compromises were discussed during an unpublicized meeting on Jan. 31 with
Burnet and Austin city officials, rice farmers and LCRA board members and staff.
LCRA already allows 50% of the water resources it manages to be sent downstream for agricultural
purposes, while asking cities, businesses and individuals to cut water usage to the bare minimum. This is
patently unfair.
Rice farming in a state prone to prolonged periods of extreme and exceptional drought is simply not
sustainable long-term. I urge LCRA to NOT include these compromises for rice farming in the water plan
for Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan.
Sincerely,
Caroline Homer
From: Ken Wiley [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
From: Conrad Kortz Jr [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
Pass The WMP
From the Desk of
Conrad A. Kortz Jr.
From: David Dacus [mailto:[email protected]]
Page 128 of 250
To: WMP
Subject: Law
Pass "The WMP Plan.
David Dacus
Sent from my iPad
From: Greg James [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP Plan !
Please I urge you to pass the WMP plan for the sake of all of us that depend on the Highland Lakes for
our water!
Greg James
To: WMP
Subject: pass the wmp plan
I encourage you to pass the WMP plan. It's all our future.
Tom Fleitz
From: camfam3 [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WMP PLAN THURSDAY
Suzi Campagna
Page 129 of 250
From: Paul Freeman [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Rebecca Klein (LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA); Lori
Berger (LCRA); John Franklin (LCRA); Jett Johnson (LCRA); Sandy Kibby (LCRA);
Thomas Martine (LCRA); Ray Gill (LCRA);
"[email protected]"@lcra.org; Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve
Balas (LCRA); Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: WMP
LCRA:
The WMP MUST be passed without further bureaucratic hanky-panky
between the GM, staff and rice farmers.
Paul Freeman
Tow
From: J. R. (Dick) Dial [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: WMP Plan
I urge you to pass the WMP PLAN now!!!!
J. R. (Dick) Dial
315 Coventry
Spicewood, TX 78669
512-914-6028
To: WMP
Page 130 of 250
Always My Best,
yolanda Newby
512 258 6862
512 779 7487 Cell
[email protected]
From: James Winfrey [mailto:[email protected]]
All: I am a property owner on Lake Travis in Spicewood, Texas and urge you to pass the Water
Management Plan.
Regards, James N. Winfrey
James N. Winfrey
President
Whisenant & Lyle Water Services
P.O. Box 525
Dripping Springs, TX 78669
512-858-4375
512-422-7440 (cell)
From: Ernest Garcia [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Plan
Please pass the WMP Plan!!!
Thank you,
E
Page 131 of 250
Ernest (Ernie) Garcia
[email protected]
From: Carole Freeman [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Thomas Martine (LCRA); Ray Gill (LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); ".
buddy.schrader"@lcra.org; Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA); Scott Arbuckle
(LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: WMP
Please pass the Water Management Plan!
drinking water also.
Our end of the lake needs
Thank you,
Carole Richards Freeman
Lake Buchanan
From: Jim Neeld [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: The WMP Plan
Pass the WMP plan
Jim Neeld
Lake Travis Boat Docks
512-461-4774
From: Kevin Breaux [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the Plan
Our lakes have been drained long enough. Please pass the water management plan!
Kevin Breaux
Page 132 of 250
Cedar Park
From: Nancy Harris [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Ray Gill (LCRA); John Franklin (LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA); Jett
Johnson (LCRA); Sandy Kibby (LCRA); Thomas Martine (LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); Buddy
Schrader (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Lori Berger (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA); Scott Arbuckle (LCRA);
John Dickerson (LCRA); Becky Motal
Cc: WMP; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
On January 18th at the LCRA Board Meeting, Becky Motal spoke of LCRA taking a “new
direction” in 2012. Show us a “new direction. Pass the proposed water management
plan now! THE WMP SHOULD BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE, NOT BIASED TOWARD RICE
INDUSTRY.
We are running out of time as we are running out of water.
Buddy and Nancy Harris
Lake Buchanan
Tow, TX
From: Rick & Linda [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP plan
Dear LCRA,
Please pass the WMP plan. I am just a concerned firm water customer, not in business. I think
passing the WMP plan would be a good starting point due to our extremely low lake conditions.
Personally I would like to see more than just limiting the rice farmers downstream for example,
putting a moratorium on new subdivisions, until we get some substantial rain. The policy of
LCRA to allow anyone water just because they ask for it should change and be evaluated on a
case by case basis. Developers should be encouraged to provide a water conservation plan in
Page 133 of 250
their proposed plans for subdivisions. You are the stewards of insuring that all of us will have
water now and in the future. It is not an infinite resource.
I have heard there are plans of building more reservoirs. Great idea!!!! Also, would it be
feasible while Lake Buchanan and Lake Travis are at such low levels, to expand or dig more in
these existing reservoirs as well??
I have lived in the Lake area for over 23 years and this is the lowest I have seen Lake Travis.
With all of the development in the Highland Lakes area and the worst summer we've ever had
last year, I fear there will not be enough water for everyone. What if we this summer is even
worse?? Please consider that when voting on the WMP plan.
Thank you,
Linda Goodale
From: Linda Jacobs [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: John Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: pass the WMP Plan
PASS THE WMP PLAN
Thank You,
Linda Jacobs/512-266-7360
**All purchases subject to 360 Technologies
Terms & Conditions Policy:
http://www.360tech.com/terms.php
From: Lakeway Breakfast [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: pass the WMP
Hello
Please pass the WMP. It was stupid to release the second rice crop in 2011.
Tom Cain
512-363-5793 C:203-605-9679
Lakeway Men's Breakfast Club
Program Chairman
Page 134 of 250
From: Brad Danielson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Plan
Dear Sirs
Please pass the WMP Plan.There has been more than enough rain in the lower colorado water shed
lately to supply the farmers with the water they need.
The next time Lake Travis fills up over flood stage,why don't you try not "dumping" the excess so we can
start with more water.
Thank You
Brad Danielson
From: Irwin Johnson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Bill Ernest; J. R. Dial
Subject: Plan
I respectfully request that you pass the original plan as it was agreed upon by ALL parties, and not one
that was concocted by the people with vested interests!!!!
We realize that it is all about money and not about being fair to ALL the river users. The rice farmers
have their own wells and are not particularly dependent upon the lake water. I think they have stopped
being rice farmers and are now water sellers.
Just be fair if that is not too much to ask. Reminds me of Duval County in the old days.
I.S. Johnson
From: Caleb Cunningham [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Page 135 of 250
From: Mickey Suhl [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Sending my support for passing the WMP plan.
The LCRA needs tighter controls.
Regards,
Mickey
Mickey Suhl
[email protected]
From: Riley Masterson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP plan...
Discussions should include all parties with an interest and no special "side" meetings.
________________________________
"Real Estate with Your Best Interest at Heart"
Riley Masterson
ABR, CRS, GRI
Direct: (512) 413-7292
From: Robert McLain [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Plan
Pass the WMP Plan.
Page 136 of 250
From: Teri Radloff [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Please PASS the WMP Plan
Teri
To: WMP
Dear Sirs:
region.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Peggy Schatz
1049 Lake Shore Drive
Spicewood, TX 78669
512-461-8266
From: sid steadman [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the Water Management Plan!
Page 137 of 250
Quit wasting our most precious natural resource and pass the WMP.
Sent from my iPad
From: Kayla McDaniel [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: FW: LCRA set to vote on Water Management Plan - wants public feedback
before ...
LCRA,
I would like my name included on the list of people that would like the
ORIGINAL WMP agreed upon by ALL the members of the group that formed a
consensus on management of our lakes: the Agriculture, Firm Water Users,
Environmentalists, and The Lakes stakeholders.
I strongly disagree with holding extra meetings behind closed doors and any
changes that were made without the agreement of ALL the members.
I trust that you will do the right thing for all the citizens of Texas and
approve the original consensus version which moves toward equality of water
distribution within the Highland Lakes and Colorado River region.
Kayla McDaniel
1021 Thurman Bluff Drive
Austin, Texas 78669
From: Jacquie Banks [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP Plan ... PLEASE!
You’ve seen the Lake Travis economic study. You’ve heard from area residents and businesses fearful
of running out of water. The ag folks need to cut back like the rest of us have had to cut back.
Many thanks,
Page 138 of 250
From: Nautical Toys [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the wmp plan
Pass the WMP Plan
From: Peter Richter [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
PASS THE WMP PLAN!
Peter Richter
From: Pam Bernhardt [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
I just read the proposed revision (linked below) to the LCRA water management plan and it makes a
tremendous amount of sense. This is something we need to do, and now! The negative economic
impact and danger to our lives with the current water management policies are enormous and need to
be changed fast.
Please act quickly and implement this immediately. Time is precious.
Thank you for hearing my voice. It is critical to the success of our Lake Travis homes that are enjoyed by
many.
Pamela Bernhardt
512-300-0288
Spicewood, TX 78669
2108 Kahala Sunset Drive
Page 139 of 250
Spicewood, TX 78669
From: Scott Morrison [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
To Whom It May Concern:
Pass the WMP Plan now.
Scott Morrison
Lakeway Resident
Scott A. Morrison, Partner
Oaks, Hartline & Daly, L.L.P.
AUSTIN OFFICE
609 Castle Ridge Rd., Suite 450
Austin, Texas 78746
(512) 469-9800
(512) 320-1515 (Fax)
HOUSTON OFFICE
th
2323 S. Shepherd, 14 Floor
Houston, Texas 77019
(713) 979-5566
(713) 979-4440 (Fax)
Board Certified, Estate Planning & Probate
Texas Board of Legal Specialization
From: mike affleck [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Michael L Affleck
Page 140 of 250
From: Douglas Borgman [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
LCRA: I am in favor of passing the WMP plan as a better way to manage our Highland Lakes water
supply. The recent drought has made it obvious that appropriately managing these lakes is critical to all
of us. Thank you, Douglas Borgman DDS
From: Jim Kollar [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
I am a boater and would like to ask LCRA to pass the WMP plan. I am concerned
about our lake with out it.
Thank you for choosing Ahern Rentals and me for your rental needs.
Jim Kollar 512 810 2112
From: Steven Kosler [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP Plan!
Keep water in Lake Travis!
Steven
From: Tom Hansen [mailto:[email protected]]
Page 141 of 250
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WMP!!!
From: MCCLOUGHAN, MERCEDES [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: DO THE RIGHT THING!
VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL CONSENSUS WMP!
Mercedes Wetzel
Pedernales River Property Owner
From: Eva Wiley [mailto:[email protected]]
Subject: FW: WMP PLAN
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dorothy Taylor <[email protected]>
Date: February 7, 2012 9:18:23 PM CST
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: Before Thursday, tell LCRA - Pass the WMP Plan
Tell all your friends & neighbors!!!
Before Thursday 2/9, Send an email to LCRA and say "PASS THE
WMP PLAN!"
send your email to [email protected]
[]
Link to NP article in today's Austin American Statesman 02/07/2012,
Page B03:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/proposed-tweaks-to-lcrawater-plan-irk-some-2155161.html?printArticle=y
Page 142 of 250
Jo Karr Tedder
President, CTWC
512.715.0015
From: David and Linda Savage [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Buddy Schrader (LCRA); Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Rebecca Klein (LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA);
Lori Berger (LCRA); Lori Berger (LCRA); John Franklin (LCRA); Jett Johnson (LCRA); Sandy Kibby (LCRA);
Thomas Martine (LCRA); Ray Gill (LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve Balas
(LCRA); Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: Please Pass the WMP
Dear LCRA Representatives,
I strongly urge you to consider passing the WMP for the economic and recreational benefit of
Lake Travis and the greater Austin area.
Sincerely,
Dave Savage
From: Robert Campbell [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Sandy Kibby (LCRA)
Please pass the WMP as written. It is a plan for all and does not cater to
special interest unlike the current non-plan. Thanks for doing your job. R.S.
Campbell, Spicewood, Texas.
From: James Buchanan [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
PASS THE WMP PLAN!!!
James C. Buchanan
Page 143 of 250
From: Heather Wakefield [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: pass the WMP plan
Please limit water releases from the Highland Lakes. The economic impact from the
real estate losses can not be measured. You will destroy an exemplary school
district and beautiful area by allowing the draining of Lake Travis.
Heather Wakefield
[email protected]
From: Rod Schaffner [mailto:[email protected]]
Subject: Before Thursday, tell LCRA - Pass the WMP Plan
PASS THE WMP PLAN
Rod Schaffner
Resident of Northlake Hills Community
Jonestown, Texas
From: Steve Steinman [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Steven Steinman
Page 144 of 250
360 Technologies Inc.
15401 Debba Drive
Austin, TX 78734
512 266 7360
888 883 0360
512 266 7360 fx
[email protected]
www.360tech.com
From: Daryl Ostrander [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
Please pass the WMP plan!
From: Doug Bogart [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PLEASE PASS THE WMP PLAN
THANK YOU
From: Mike at QuickDraw [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
Dear LCRA,
PLEASE PASS the WMP Plan
Thank You
Mike Peraino
Page 145 of 250
Home Owner E. Lake Buchanan area
From: Leslie Fallon [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: LCRA WMP
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
I read the latest LCRA Water Management Plan (WMP) and think it is a step in the right direction and
strongly encourage the LCRA to pass the WMP. I support organizations such as DELTA and the Central
Texas Water Coalition and agree with their position on the issues.
I've kept up with water issues for a number of years and I am amazed at how critical water has become
in the past 16 years I've lived on Lake Travis - a relatively short period of time in the big picture of
Central Texas. I'm not sure what organization addresses pricing, but I do think that our fresh water
resources need to be appropriately valued so that the price goes up when supply is down. Voluntary
water conservation will only work so far. I was appalled this past year during the severe drought upon
hearing acquaintances from Houston discuss flooding rice fields with releases from the Colorado so
that they could hunt birds.
Thank you for your time and service in developing the WMP.
Sincerely,
Leslie Fallon
From: Hugh Horne [mailto:[email protected]]
Gill (LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); buddy.; Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA); Scott Arbuckle
(LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: WMP Plan
Members of the Board of Directors of LCRA
Please Pass The “ORIGINAL” WMP Plan !
Respectfully,
Hugh Horne
Page 146 of 250
Hugh W. Horne
HORNE DEVELOPMENTS, INC.
2307 Camino Alto
Austin, Texas 78746
Tel 512 328-8118
Fax 512 233-2329
[email protected]
From: Vera [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Thomas Martine (LCRA); Ray Gill (LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); Buddy Schrader
(LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA); Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); John
Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: water
From: Bradley Hubbard [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Fw: TIME FOR ACTION - TELL THE LCRA TO APPROVE THE WMP!
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pass/Approve the WMP, keep this fair to ALL water users!!!!!!!
Bradley Hubbard
--- On Tue, 2/7/12, Windermere Oaks Property Owners Association <[email protected]>
wrote:
From: Windermere Oaks Property Owners Association <[email protected]>
Subject: TIME FOR ACTION - TELL THE LCRA TO APPROVE THE WMP!
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2012, 5:20 PM
Please contact us with any questions at the email address or phone number listed below.
Page 147 of 250
BEFORE THURSDAY, TELL THE LCRA
TO PASS THE WMP PLAN
Before Thursday 2/9/12
Tell LCRA
TO PASS THE WMP PLAN!
Send an email to: [email protected]
and cc the LCRA BOARD:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Link to NP article in Austin American Statesman 02/07/2012, Page B03:
Contact Us
Mary Lynn Oberg
Oberg Properties
1107 RR 620 South
Austin, TX 78734
(512) 263-5200
(512) 263-5219 fax
(800) 252-3473
[email protected]
Forward email
This email was sent to [email protected] by [email protected] |
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.
Page 148 of 250
Oberg Properties | 1107 RR 620 South | Austin | TX | 78734
From: John & Judy Schlotzhauer [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Water Plan
Hello,
Mu husband and I live in Volente and and are very concerned about the dwindling water supply. In order
to support all interests, we must find new sources of water and conserve what we have.
Please pass the WMP plan asap. We are working on this way too late!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you.
John and Judy Schlotzhauer
512-258-8136
From: Taylor Hall [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Approval of the Original Water Management Plan
Dear Sirs and Ma'ams,
Please honor your role in stewardship of our shared natural resource of the Lower Colorado River of
Texas by considering the needs of all affected entities including Agricultural, Firm Water Users,
Environmentalists, and The Lakes Stakeholders. The original consensus version of the Water
Management Plan, which includes the voice of all four parties, is the plan that must be approved.
Approval of an altered plan which heavily considers the needs of the Agricultural Stakeholders would be
both unethical and damaging to the Texas economy and natural habitat.
We hope you will act with integrity and approve the Water Management Plan that outlines a
progressive program toward equality in water distribution for all involved parties within the Lower
Colorado River Region of Texas.
Thank you,
Taylor and Casie Hall
-Taylor Hall
Page 149 of 250
Chef Taylor Hall
23526 Hwy 71 West
Cell (940) 841-2510
Office (512) 264-1587
Fax (512) 264-1815
www.cheftaylorhall.com
To: WMP
Cc:
"[email protected]@[email protected]
[email protected]@[email protected]@lcra.orgthomas.
[email protected]@[email protected]@lcra.orgs
[email protected]@[email protected]"@lc
ra.org; Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Rebecca Klein (LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA);
Lori Berger (LCRA); John Franklin (LCRA); Jett Johnson (LCRA); Sandy Kibby
(LCRA); [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]; Buddy
Schrader (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA); Scott Arbuckle (LCRA);
John Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: PASS THE WATER PLAN NOW!!!
PASS THE WATER PLAN NOW!!!
Bob Burns
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
From: Ron Abshier [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
To LCRA Board of Directors;
Please pass the Water Management Plan as presented to you by the Stakeholders Committee. The
committee recommendations should not be altered or amended prior to final approval.
Page 150 of 250
Thank you,
Ron Abshier
113 N. Cardinal Ln
Bluffton, Tx 78607
From: Jean Hennagin [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Please pass the water management plan.
From: Boyd Hemphill [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Dear Sir or Madam:
I appreciate the immense amount of consideration put into the creation and consideration of the WMP
plan on each of your parts.
I would like to take this moment to encourage each member to vote for this plan.
Best Regards
Boyd Hemphill
From: Richard Kutner [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Page 151 of 250
Subject: Lake Travis: Pass the WMP Plan!
I am expressing my support for the WMP plan and asking that action be taken to implement it.
The WMP plan is the appropriate response to the situations we face today.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard Kutner
Richard Kutner
5470 Braesvalley Drive, #325
Houston TX 77096-6305
T: 713.705.9989
F: 713.283.7602
E: [email protected]
Consulting: General Business, Information Technology, Oil & Gas
From: Martin Boyer [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP Plan, please!
The mismanagement of our Lake Travis water has caused our dealership to lose customers at
an unprecedented rate. Most have been customers of our dealership for decades. Many long
term boaters have just had it with the rise and fall of the lake level.
Most anyone you speak with in our lake area communities agrees that it makes no logical sense
to continue releasing massive amounts of water (in 2011) in a horrible drought to
“interruptible” customers (rice farmers) to only then be forced to truck in drinking water for
“firm” water customers (in 2012). And hundreds of millions of dollars that are being siphoned
away from our communities and their homeowners, businesses that rely on Lake Travis and the
related taxing entities.
PLEASE put the proposed WMP into effect immediately.
Respectfully,
Page 152 of 250
Martin Boyer
Vice President/General Manager
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Terry Alton
To: WMP
Subject: Lake Travis
I am against taking water out of Lake Travis and sending it to the rice farmers. The lake is already too
low and the businesses that rely on lake traffic are hurting. You need to go back to your original plan to
not release any water from Lake Travis to give to the farmers.
Terry Alton
To: WMP
Subject: "PASS THE WMP PLAN!" we need your help
Importance: High
Kind regards,
Sylvia Guzman
To: WMP
Subject:
Please pass the WMP Plan!!
Ken Stockton
Houston, Texas
Page 153 of 250
From: Warren W. Mabry [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP PLAN
Importance: High
TIME TO PASS THE WMP PLAN!!!
To: WMP
Cc: Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Rebecca Klein (LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA);
Lori Berger (LCRA); Jett Johnson (LCRA); John Franklin (LCRA); Sandy Kibby (LCRA); Ray Gill (LCRA);
Thomas Martine (LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); Buddy Schrader (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve
Balas (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: Pass the WMP Plan!!
Please pass the WMP Plan!!
Ken Stockton
Houston, Texas
From: Kay or Gayland Miller [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Plan
Pass the WMP Plan!
Page 154 of 250
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
I own a waterfront home on Lake Travis in which I have invested something
approaching $2 million. The overwhelming majority of that investment went to local
businesses. I only made this investment as I love having a waterfront property so that I
can enjoy boating, the beautiful scenery, and all that the lake has to offer. If I had
known that the lake would effectively be drained to serve those who live nowhere near
the lake, I would have never made the investment. My sense is that I am in no way
unique, rather I represent the views of the majority of folks who have waterfront property
on Lake Travis. The lake needs to be better managed -- please pass a sensible
Water Management Plan that fully respects all stakeholders.
Most Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Lang
832-419-8846
From: Julie Weiss [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Please pass the Water Management Plan for Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan and DO NOT send water
to the rice farmers once we hit the trigger points outlined in the plan!
Thanks,
Julie Weiss
Let Your Dog Live Offleash at...
Spicewood K9 Club
512-789-0697
Page 155 of 250
From: Heather Affleck [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Please pass the plan and save our lake.
Heather Affleck
2100 Rachel Ridge
Cedar Park, TX 78613
From: Jason Colca [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
From: Jim Conrad [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Plan
Please pass the WMP Plan.
Jim Conrad
South Austin Marine
5340 Hwy. 290 West
Austin, Texas 78735
512-892-2432 WK.
512-892-5462 Fax
512-748-1649 Cell
[email protected]
From: Ron Wilson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WMP PLAN.
Thanks for your consideration.
Page 156 of 250
Ron Wilson, Llano County Court Administrator
801 Ford Street
Room 101
Llano, Texas 78643
W. 325.247.7730, Ext. 3247
[email protected]
From: Barbara Tweed [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
(LCRA)
Subject: Do you hear the people?
To the board of LCRA,
We emplore you to approve the Plan! The Water Management Plan as it is written!
Regards,
Barbara Tweed
312 Harbor Dr
Spicewood, TX 78669
From: Karen Walker [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Rebecca Klein (LCRA); Lori Berger (LCRA); John Franklin (LCRA); Jett
Johnson (LCRA); Sandy Kibby (LCRA); Thomas Martine (LCRA); Ray Gill (LCRA); Michael McHenry
(LCRA); Buddy Schrader (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA); Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); John
Dickerson (LCRA)
No special interest groups.
Thank you,
Karen Walker
Page 157 of 250
Cedar Park, Texas
From: Nathan Russell [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Please pass the wmp plan
I fully support this plan!
Nathan Russell
Account Executive
Vmware
(512) 483-1160
From: Roger Wallis [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
LCRA Board members:
The WMP as amended for the LCRA Board meeting in Jan 2012 should be approved ASAP. The new
proposed amendment to reduce the cutoff level for Lake Buchanan should not be approved. Without
regard for the merits, or lack thereof, of the new proposed amendment, the process used to develop
this proposal violates all principals of due process and fair play.
Roger Wallis Lt. Col. USAF Ret
100 CR 138 B
Burnet, Tx 78611
Elect only people who support TERM LIMITS.
Page 158 of 250
To: WMP
Subject: (no subject)
To whom it may concern:
As a concerned citizen living in Lago Vista on Lake Travis I don't want any changes made to the Water
Management Plan approved January 27, 2010. Thank you, Elizabeth Goldsby
From: Gary Cobb [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
I'm missing the use of my family's boat.
Cordially,
Dr. Gary W. Cobb
Sent from my iPhone
From: James Clarke [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass it now! Before there's nothing left to manage.....
-Jim Clarke
office 512/419-5379
cell 512/423-9522
home 512/288-0483
From: Jenny Lu Johnson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
PASS THE WMP PLAN!
~JLJ
Page 159 of 250
From: Barbara Tweed [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Michael McHenry (LCRA); Buddy Schrader (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA); Scott
Arbuckle (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: R Do you hear the people?
On 2/8/2012 1:08 PM, Barbara Tweed wrote:
Dear LCRA board members,
We, the people, emplore you to pass the Water Management Plan as it is written.
Regards,
Jerry and Barbara Tweed
312 Harbor Dr
Spicewood, Tx. 78669
From: Gary Pankonien [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
Pass the WMP plan
Gary W. Pankonien
Chief Operations Officer
Conmedisys, Inc.
1909 W. Braker
Suite 200
Austin, Tx 78758
(512) 758-7405 direct
(512) 913-0460 cell
www.conmedisys.com
From: Cindi Darragh-Leech [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Page 160 of 250
Subject: Wmp
Please pass the WMP plan for Lake Travis, we will not have enough water in Spicewood if you do not
pass this.
Cindi Darragh-Leech
From: jpjStallonE [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Fwd: Before Thursday, tell LCRA - Pass the WMP Plan
Good Morning to All,
Pass the WMP plan.
Joe and Helen Stallone
Lakeway, Tx
From: "Jodi Looper" <[email protected]>
To: "Jodi Looper" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 9:28:14 AM
Subject: FW: Before Thursday, tell LCRA - Pass the WMP Plan
Before Thursday 2/9, Send an email to LCRA and say "PASS THE WMP
PLAN!"
send your email to [email protected]
Page 161 of 250
and cc the LCRA BOARD:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Link to NP article in today's Austin American Statesman 02/07/2012, Page
B03:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/proposed-tweaks-to-lcra-waterplan-irk-some-2155161.html?printArticle=y
Jo Karr Tedder
President, CTWC
512.715.0015
This email was sent to you from Central Texas Water Coalition, if you do not wish to receive future emails, please let us know
at [email protected]
From: Katie Toth [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Please pass the WMP plan!
Dear LCRA,
Please pass the WMP plan. I am just a concerned water customer, not in business. Due to our
extremely low lake levels, I think passing the WMP plan would be a good starting point. I also think we
should do more than just limiting the rice farmers downstream. Additionally, I think we should put a
moratorium on new subdivisions, until we get some substantial rain. The policy of LCRA to allow anyone
water just because they ask for it should change and be evaluated on a case by case basis. Developers
should be encouraged to provide a water conservation plan in their proposed plans for subdivisions.
You are the stewards of insuring that all of us will have water now and in the future. It is not an infinite
resource.
Page 162 of 250
I have heard there are plans of building more reservoirs. Great idea!!!! Also, would it be feasible while
Lake Buchanan and Lake Travis are at such low levels, to expand or dig more in these existing reservoirs
as well??
I was born and raised in Austin and this is the lowest I have seen Lake Travis. With all of the
development in the Highland Lakes area and the worst summer we've ever had last year, I fear there will
not be enough water for everyone. What if this summer is even worse?? Please consider that when
voting on the WMP plan.
Thank you,
Katie Toth
1007 Kinney Ave.
Austin, TX 78704
Cell 789-0857
Home 441-0228
From: Patrick Elcan [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP Water Plan
Please!!
To: WMP
Subject: Approve the Plan as written Before Thursday 2/9.
Approve the Plan (Water Management Plan) as written Before Thursday 2/9.
Marjorie Dearmont, M.A.
Certified Silva Instructor
512-355-3886
101 Oak Crest Dr
Bertram, TX 78605
[email protected]
www.marjoriedearmont.com
Page 163 of 250
From: Lisa Kahr [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
--
Thank you,
Lisa Kahr
512-626-1573
[email protected]
From: Chris Pearson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Meeting
Please pass the WMP plan immediately. Policies adopted in the past are destroying Lake Travis
Chris Pearson
807 Sunfish
Lakeway
Texas 78734
From: Elizabeth Boggess [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
Please pass the wmp....we need this. Elizabeth Boggess
From: Lally, Thomas [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Page 164 of 250
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I respectfully ask that you pass the WMP plan.
Thank you.
Thomas J. Lally
Vice President, Operations
Surgical Care Affiliates
Mobile: 512-689-9381
From: ron morrow [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS the WMP Plan
We are a LCRA water contract holder on Lake Travis and we have had no lake water at our residence
since July 2011. There has to be a water plan for Lake Travis and the entire LCRA water system. We
strongly recommend passage of the WMP water plan .
Ron and Marsha Morrow
From: iris&riley [mailto:[email protected]]
Cc: WMP
Subject: WMP
PASS THE WMP PLAN!
Thanks,
The Walkers
Page 165 of 250
From: John Eastberg [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Please pass this Plan. And why are we growing rice in Texas anyway?. Seems like a bad idea in a water
starved state. And I hope the rumor is not true that it's to support duck hunting!???
-John Eastberg
From: Claire Harrah [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WPM plan
Pass the WPM plan
Claire Harrah
To: WMP
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP Plan!!!
Page 166 of 250
We can’t afford any more water loss out of Lake Travis!!
Steve Hurt
Commodity Business Manager
GSO BTP Fabrication
Phone: 512-272-1627
Cell: 512-879-7954
From: Larry ODonnell [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Plan
I am a resident of Travis County and live on Lake Travis. It is unbelievable to me how LCRA continues to
release and commit to more water discharge and out-takes from Lake Travis when the Lake is in such a
dire condition. It is clear that LCRA has over-committed our precious water resource. This has had a
devastating impact on our Lake, its eco-system, our home values, and the economic well-being of the
businesses that are dependent upon a healthy and robust Lake Travis.
I understand that the LCRA is considering making additional changes to the Water Management Plan for
Lake Travis which would allow additional discharges of water from lakes Travis and Buchanan once their
combined storage is less than 1 million acre-feet, rather than 1.2 million acre-feet under the current
plan, on both June 1 and Aug. 1. I ask you to please reconsider this and not change the combined
storage number to a lower number. If anything, it should be increased (so that the level in the lakes is
maintained at a higher level before a discharge is permitted).
Please consider what you are doing to our beautiful lake, the surrounding businesses that depend on the
lake, home values, and the health of the lake and its eco-system. These vital issues should come first.
Larry O’Donnell, III
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
PASS THE WMP PLAN!!! Give us some water back into Lake Travis, I have a $60,000
sailboat that is damn near stuck in its slip. Couldnt even sell it if I wanted
to.
Page 167 of 250
From: j wilson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS WMP PLAN
I live in Volente
Jane Wilson
512-909-0195
From: Grant Farn [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
I would like to reiterate the comments sent by Steve and Debbie Peek. Our land value is declining based
on your actions.
region.
M. Grant Farn, VP Finance
Cascade Petroleum, LLC
1331 17th Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80202
Direct: (303) 407-6505
Mobile: (720) 539-1135
Page 168 of 250
From: JB [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
From: Juin Cooper [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
“PASS THE WMP PLAN!”
Juin Cooper
REALTOR®, Listing Specialist
Goldwasser Real Estate
c 512-297-0801
o 512-420-0300
f 800-948-4045
From: Doug Suttles [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Dickerson (LCRA)
As a long time resident of Travis county I believe it is critical that
you pass the water management plan now. The demographics of the area
have shifter dramatically over the last 30 years. The current drought
has shown how exposed we are to how we manage and use the water in the
Page 169 of 250
highland lakes. We need a new plan that addresses all of the
stakeholder needs and acts conservatively with our precious lake
water. I urge you to pass the plan now.
Sincerely,
Doug and Christy Suttles
From: LAB2004 [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: water management plan.
Hello:
Please pass the WMP plan. Conditions have changed to the areas surrounding the Highland lakes since
the original project was completed. Extensive real estate and city infrastructure development has been
allowed to exceed water capacity during drought conditions in my opinion. This potentially threatens the
value of those assets in a very negative way. I believe that the value of those assets exceeds the
agricultural needs and therefore should be given some higher priority.
Sincerely,
Larry Burks
204 Palos Verdes Dr.
Lakeway, Tx. 78734
From: Frank Smith [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
Frank J. Smith
316 Lakefront Dr.
Point Venture, TX 78645
512 2672242
Page 170 of 250
From: David Miller [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WMP PLAN!"
Please!
David Miller
Sent from my iPhone
From: Maria Baker [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: FW: Pass the WMP without the recent "tweaks"
I do no own property on Lake Travis or live on the Lake. We moved to Lakeway to experience a beautiful
environment enriched by the lake and what it provides all stakeholders. Droughts happen, but we don't
have to have a "man made" drought which allows a small handful of people to prosper while the majority
of residents, visitors and businesses suffer. Show some courage and integrity. Pass the WMP as
agreed by ALL stakeholders in January.
Maria Baker
Lakeway, TX
261-3123
From: Douglas Allen [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: LCRA Water Management Plan
I am sending this e-mail to express my STRONG request for your vote to PASS the TCEQ approved
Water Management Plan that was developed by the
entire 16 member stakeholder group.
I am very concerned about LCRA's ability to continue to protect and deliver the precious water resources
needed for the "firm water" customers in the Austin and Highland Lakes regions during periods of
extreme draught. Now is not the time to become blinded by profit driven motives of "second crop"
water releases at the expense of firm water commitments that literally supply life support to the people
and communities in the Austin and Highland Lakes.
I was a member of the stakeholder group, but I do believe that strong consideration should be given to
using alternate ground water resources for the "down river" rice farmers. This could include a
negotiated support program to help reduce the financial impact for the additional power required to
pump ground water to their fields. Bottom line, there must be a laser focus by the LCRA on preserving
our critically short water resources for firm water customers and communities.
Page 171 of 250
Douglas O Allen, Jr.
111 Del Mar Drive
Buchanan Dam, Tx. 78609
cell ph: 979-665-2249
From: Lew Curatolo [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
The Water Management Plan needs to be approved AS WRITTEN. I think that the
"process" is anything but "appropriate" as stated. I would like to personally
invite anyone from the LCRA ( or any other organization for that matter) for a
tour of the upper lakes in the event they haven't ventured out of their suburban
homes for a while. Anyone that thinks we have an ample water supply in Lake
Travis or Lake Buchanon most likely believes Obamacare is a great deal. The fact
is, while highly profitable to a chosen few, the majority gets screwed. I guess
the LCRA was also inspired by the current administrations voting practices.
Lew Curatolo
From: Christie Latimer [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: pass the wmp plan
pass the wmp plan. thanks
chris latimer
lakeway, tx
From: Philip Scoggin [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Dear Sir/Madam,
Page 172 of 250
We are residents of Lake Travis and have endured the hardships of Texas draughts going on several
years. It was disheartening to learn that LCRA was reneging on your position to reduce the water
released from the lake to the rice farmers (read BIG BUSINESS!, not family farms) downstream from the
lake. Two of our immediate neighbors have been forced to spend thousands of dollars to have their
wells deepened because of the draught. We are exercising every conservation precaution in our power
to preclude that drastic expense. Your decision may actually make our precautions immaterial and
make our well go dry anyway. We urge you to reconsider you decision to release the Lake Travis waters
for the rice farming industry and think about the residents of this lake.
Thank you very much,
Joan & Philip Scoggin
18208 Austin Blvd
Lago Vista, Tx 78645
From: Jodi Looper [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
PASS THE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NOW!
You released record breaking levels of water in 2011 to rice farmers who pay only $6 per acre foot while
the cities pay $151 per acre foot. The exact lake level cannot be controlled due to evaporation, rainfall
and run off but ranges of the lake could be managed. The new policy is a good start but more work
needs to be done to make the water policy fair between lake interests and rice farmers. Actually fair is
not even the word. The economic impact on the state of Texas will be detrimental with the release of
water from Lake Travis to the rice farmers. People are all moving and living in and around Lake Travis
and Austin….not in Matagorda county! Imagine the economic impact if people stopped moving to Texas
and around Lake Travis.
Why are you not planning on desalinating or reservoirs like other states?
I attended the last LCRA meeting and was amazed at what I heard. This whole issue revolves around
politics and money and not doing the right thing for the state of Texas or your firm customers.
I am from the Texas panhandle and came from a big ranching and farming family. My family still farms
but running people out of drinking water and “bathing on special occasions” to save a rice crop is
unheard of. The farmers have subsidies. How does the general public get subsidies for their drinking
water or their businesses. Maybe consider all of the businesses that will be out of business if you drain
Page 173 of 250
the lakes: real estate, restaurants, hotels, gas stations, lawn services, marinas, boat dealers, the list goes
on and on. What kind of impact will that have directly on the state of Texas! Your state! This is not
about rice farmers versus boaters. This is about drinking water versus a rice crop (not even a crop we
need to survive or use in Texas)!
Jodi Looper
From: Thomas Robins [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PLEASE, PASS THE WMP PLAN!
From: Matt Bridges [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Thank you!
Matt Bridges
PO Box 80142 Austin, TX 78708
512.983.9079 mbl
From: Stephen Clark [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Plan
Pass the wmp plan!!
Steve Clark
1008 elm st. Austin. 78703
From: William Black, III [mailto:[email protected]]
Page 174 of 250
To: WMP
Subject:
Please pass the WMP plan with the 1.2 million cut off. William B Black lll
St Houston, Texas 77024
11976 Claywood
To: WMP
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: WMP plan
My wife and I have been residents of Austin for the past 16 years and we own two properties on
Lake Buchanan. We are active members of a boat club with docks on Lake Travis and Lake Austin. I have
followed the El Nino and La Nina weather patterns for years and understand the drought cycle in Central
Texas. I have seen Lake Buchanan full, and I have seen it low as now. (more than once) There is no
question that the answer to our water challenges is conservation and better management. Dumping
water downstream answering to one constituency is not a plan; it is simply an outdated method of flood
control.
We have three daughters ages 15, 13, and 9. We have taught them that if they want to
continue to live in Central Texas, they must start thinking about water as a resource more valuable than
energy or oil. In fact, they know what the term “ship showers” mean, and they have never been on a
ship.
I have read the WMP and believe it is a start towards saving this vital resource.
Please PASS THE WMP now, and save our future!!!
David Kessler
Austin, TX
From: Lonnie T [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
LCRA,
Pass the WMP Plan
Lonnie TeSelle
4207 Lakeway Blvd.
Lakeway, TX 78734
Page 175 of 250
From: Beth Burdett [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: Water Plan
Importance: High
I am writing in regards to the changes or "tweaks" you are considering to accept
into the water plan. I believe the time has come for the LCRA to step up to the
plate and for once "Do The Right Thing". You are jeoporidizing the health and
well being of the communities that take water directly from Lake Travis. I am
appalled that any of you would consider any compromises regarding the water plan
when people's sanitation and health are a factor.
I also believe that the meeting which only took place with two of the four
stakeholder groups which helped put this plan together was inexcusable. I am
certain that nothing I have to say will make any difference because you have all
ready shown the respect and concern you have for the people of the Highland Lake
area, but I felt the need to at least let you know how I feel.
Beth Burdett
Windermere Oaks Homeowner
Lake Travis
To: WMP
Subject: Water Plan
Importance: High
I am writing in regards to the changes or "tweaks" you are considering to accept into the water plan. I
believe the time has come for the LCRA to step up to the plate and for once "Do The Right Thing". You
are jeoporidizing the health and well being of the communities that take water directly from Lake Travis.
I am appalled that any of you would consider any compromises regarding the water plan when people's
sanitation and health are a factor.
I also believe that the meeting which only took place with two of the four stakeholder groups which
helped put this plan together was inexcusable. I am certain that nothing I have to say will make any
difference because you have all ready shown the respect and concern you have for the people of the
Highland Lake area, but I felt the need to at least let you know how I feel.
Beth Burdett
Lake Travis
Page 176 of 250
From: Shirley Montgomery [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
PASS THE WMP PLAN!!
Shirley Montgomery
Lake Buchanan
From: Jim Erdeljac [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP; Dorothy Taylor; William H Aydam
Subject: LCRA Water Management
LCRA,
Please have a little more consideration for the Local's in and around Austin.
You are contributing to a bad economy without any recovery in sight.
Your hurting the Marinas, Restaurants and the property values.
I have played and lived on Lake Travis since 1973, never has it been
controlled by such self serving individuals as this board.
Please keep the water in Lake Travis!
Thank you,
Jim Erdeljac
Broker/ Owner
RE/MAX River City
6900 RR 620 N.
Austin, Texas 78732
(512) 336-9800 Office
(512) 336-9700 Fax
(512) 422-2628 Cell
From: Melody Gayeski [mailto:[email protected]]
Page 177 of 250
To: WMP
Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA); [email protected]
Please vote responsibly and pass the plan!
From a concerned Travis County citizen....
Melody D. Gayeski, PMP
Northlake Hills Property Owners Association Member....
From: Bryan Harter [mailto:[email protected]]
Cc: WMP
Subject: Please Pass the WMP Plan
As a concerned homeowner in Austin and on Lake Travis, I request the you pass the WMP Plan and start
treating this water shortage seriously.
Best Regards,
Bryan Harter
4714 Hickory Hollow
Austin, TX 78731
From: Jay Harris [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
Please pass the WMP plan!!
From: Anne Morley [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Page 178 of 250
Subject: Vote
Please PASS THE WMP PLAN
Anne Morley
Personal Trainer
[email protected]
From: Buck Ballas [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WMP
PASS THE WMP
Buck Ballas
C 713-826-2222 F 713-521-6195
[email protected]
From: Ahoy [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP water plan
To: WMP
Page 179 of 250
Sincerely,
Cheryl Perine
To: Timothy Timmerman (LCRA)
Sincerely,
Cheryl Perine
From: Jon A. Potcinske - Green Mill Mortgage & Investments [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Please PASS THE WMP PLAN!!!
Jon A. Potcinske - President & Founder
[email protected]
BBA's Finance & Management
Certified Mortgage Consultant
Certified Financial Planner course completion
GreenMillMortgage.com
Subject: Water Plan
Importance: High
I am writing in regards to the changes or "tweaks" you are considering to accept into the water plan. I
believe the time has come for the LCRA to step up to the plate and for once "Do The Right Thing". You
are jeoporidizing the health and well being of the communities that take water directly from Lake Travis.
Page 180 of 250
I am appalled that any of you would consider any compromises regarding the water plan when people's
sanitation and health are a factor.
I also believe that the meeting which only took place with two of the four stakeholder groups which
helped put this plan together was inexcusable. I am certain that nothing I have to say will make any
difference because you have all ready shown the respect and concern you have for the people of the
Highland Lake area, but I felt the need to at least let you know how I feel.
Beth Burdett
Lake Travis
From: Gary Messersmith [mailto:[email protected]]
Subject: Approve the Plan as written
Gary Messersmith
Member
Looper Reed & McGraw, P.C.
1300 Post Oak Blvd. Suite 2000
Houston, TX 77056
Tel 713.986.7216 | Fax 713.986.7100
[email protected] | www.lrmlaw.com
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Gene Schneider
To: WMP
Dear LCRA
PLEASE "PASS THE WMP PLAN!"
IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO !
Thank you
Gene Schneider
Page 181 of 250
From: karen bruett [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
(LCRA); Buddy Schrader (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA);
Michael McHenry (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA)
To LCRA – as a resident of Lakeside Beach,a member of the HOA board of directors, and a home
owner who depends on the Spicewood well, I would like to request that 1) the WMP plan be passed,
and 2) that the late change to the storage limits for releasing water remains at $1.2 million acre-feet
NOT be adjusted to 1 million acre feet.
Sincerely,
Michael T Roberts and Karen E Bruett
307 Lakeside Drive
Spicewood, TX 78669
From: Erhard R. Sudermann [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Rebecca Klein (LCRA); Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA); Lori Berger (LCRA);
Subject: WMP Plan
It is imperative that you pass the WMP PLAN!
Erhard and Sylvia Sudermann
From: Charles [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
As a long time resident of Travis county I believe it is critical that
you pass the water management plan now without the lower cutoff being considered for the rice
farmers second crop. The demographics of the area
Page 182 of 250
have shifted dramatically over the last 30 years. The current drought
has shown how exposed we are to how we manage and use the water in the
highland lakes. We need a new plan that addresses all of the
stakeholder needs and acts conservatively with our precious lake
water. I urge you to pass the plan now.
Sincerely,
Charles and Dianne Keaton
From: Fancher, Lisa [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Please pass the water management plan without revision
The plan isn’t perfect, but it represents a reasonable compromise achieved after extensive negotiations
among all interest groups. It is not appropriate to revise it for the benefit of the rice farmers, who are
not firm water customers.
If the board nevertheless decides to accept the revision, however, even the revised plan is preferable to
what we have now.
Lisa Fancher
3007 Harris Blvd.
Austin, TX 78703
512-322-4708
[email protected]
From: Erhard R. Sudermann [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP PLAN
Although the new proposed WMP PLAN does not address one very important issue,
it is imperative that the plan will be passed and put into effect, so at least some
improvement in the allocation, control, and use of the Highland Lakes water can
be achieved.
Page 183 of 250
The issue not addressed of course is the injustice of the great disparity in the rates
charged firm customers and rice farmers. Rice farmers should have to pay the
same rates as firm customers, and maybe then they would use the resources
available to them in their close proximity, instead of admittedly not doing so
because the lake water is cheaper.
AGAIN: THE NEW PROPOSED WMP PLAN MUST BE PASSED!
Erhard & Sylvia Sudermann
13300 Mansfield Dr.
Austin, TX 78732
From: Ann Francese [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Opinion on the Water Management Plan
To the LCRA:
It is time that the LCRA pays attention to ALL important factors affecting the lakes.
We need a water source that is pure for all of us to drink and we need the water for basic needs of life.
We think it is a luxury that the rice farmers continue to receive cheap water AND SUCH AN
EXTREME AMOUNT OF IT. We need a plan that is fair and equitable to all, but first to the people that
drink this water. It is upsetting when the rice farmers don't even use their own ground water first because
our lake water is cheaper. It is also upsetting to know much of the water goes out into the Gulf of Mexico
leaving our lakes low and with significant impact to our economy here. It is also upsetting to know that
LCRA needs to send water downstream for the electricity you produce (97% of your income comes
through electricity). These figures came to me through a meeting I attended with the Texas Water
Coalition. We need to maintain and ensure a safe water supply as our first mission.
It is appalling that the State of Texas and LCRA have no rules about numbers of docks/marinas/fuel
lines/petrol tanks on the reservoir lakes that can potentially make our drinking water unfit for human
consumption. It is a fact I learned from the LCRA that along the whole shoreline of these lakes we could
have continuous marinas and docks with no limits to amounts of docks/marinas. When you factor in a
very low lake level and pollutants, you are dealing with our safety. Lake Travis is the lake that has the
most docks and marinas on it out of all of Texas and the developers are continuing to file requests for
more. Unheard of in many States to put docks on your water supply as they understand that to protect
their water for drinking is their first mission.
LCRA cannot predict using previous averages of water as our needs for the water have increased making
predictions from the past irrelevant. You must step up to these very real and very concerning issues. Your
decisions cannot be political BUT FACT based so when I read that the rice farmers have $1
million dollars for lobbying in Texas, I am absolutely outraged that they can sway who really
gets to use this water and what is most important. This brings me to the next point of many times in
asking the LCRA for a ruling on things that seem logical to our protection of these lakes and then we hear
back from LCRA that this isn't your mission or your role. I think that the LCRA needs to step up and
adjust their mission to face the very real threat to our water source. Twenty years ago or even ten years
ago, we did not have highways and neighborhoods very near our lakes as we do today. We have a vibrant
economy around the lakes that bring income into the City of Austin. (The recent study has been done).
Page 184 of 250
The LCRA has never had to consider these things when Austin was a sleepy little college town. The
threat to our water is very real and as you are hearing from many concerned people today, you cannot
ignore us and follow on with your current mission statement.
We will copy the lake interest points from the Texas Water Coalition as we feel they have studied the
water issues and are raising flags where they need to be raised. We agree with all that they are asking of
the LCRA and the State of Texas:
INDUSTRY.
of water.
 Limiting open supply to 273,000 af. Open supply is the practice of not restricting
storage level.
restricted.
 Setting the lakes' minimum combined storage level at amount needed to supply firm
water needs for one year. 350,000 af in the WMP is TOO RISKY; lakes fought for a
 Using the environmental flow criteria developed in studies completed in 2008 and using
two trigger points, January 1 and June 1, for determining in stream flow releases. The criteria
were developed to help meet the environmental needs of the river and Matagorda Bay.
Page 185 of 250

Accepting an anytime cutoff of stored water when combined storage reaches 600,000 AF

tourism


o Accurate LCRA reporting of lake-related data that use real-time information, not averages
Please consider all that we are asking and please hear what we are saying.
Ann and Tom Francese
Leander, Tx
From: Gil [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Gil Glastetter, PMP
Page 186 of 250
[email protected]
512-695-0636
From: Thomas Jagger [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Hi!
Please pass the WMP Plan!
Thanks,
Thomas
-Thomas Jagger
512 917-2213
[email protected]
www.gkrete.com
From: Steve Almond [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Plan
PASS THE WMP PLAN!!!!
Steve Almond
From: Bill Hudson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Page 187 of 250
Dear LCRA;
I have lived on Lake Travis for 15 years. My wife and I moved here and want to retire here on Lake
Travis, because of the lake and the oppurtunities that were here. I am a business investor on Lake
Travis and an avid boater - which means boating almost every weekend - weather permitting. My dock is
presently lying on the dry lake bottom and I've had to move my boat to another area of the lake. The
business that I am part of has suffered tremendously, barely staying alive.
Just as life evolves and changes, communties such as those that surround this lake, also evolve.
Accordingly, the guidelines that govern what happens to Lake Travis needs to evolve, following the needs
of the people and businesses that are effected. THE NEEDS OF MANY ARE GREATER THAN THE
NEEDS OF A FEW FARMERS. In business decisions, the greater economic impact in this evolution
should take precedence.
After review of the results of the studies that have been made, and also responding to the pressure from
those that live and work in and around Lake Travis, it seems that LCRA is striving to finally make some
necessary changes. I thank you for those changes. I think you are late in getting there. But better late
than never. Please evolve with the rest of us, staying in the forefront of managing our water for the
greater good of those people you serve.
Bill & Kathy Hudson
18408 W Rim Dr
Jonestown, TX 78645
From: Ernestine Palmer [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Vote
You are a quasi governmental body who is supposed to look after the public good
not the benefit of a few. I encourage you to not vote for the plan agreed to
behind closed doors but the original plan that included input from all the
shareholders. Water is a precious and not infinite resource that needs to be
managed for the use of all not a few. The public is finally paying attention to
this matter and will not stand for the good ol boy style of management as before.
Sincerely, Ernestine Palmer Spicewood, Tx
Sent from my iPhone
From: Carrie Carter [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP plan
Page 188 of 250
Pass the WMP plan!
Carrie
From: Gail Goodman [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: please pass the plan!
Dear LCRA board and staff,
As a frequent user of Lake Travis and a resident of Austin I hope that you will pass the water use plan.
Thank you for your service to our community and state.
Sincerely,
Gail Goodman
From: Stephen Smith [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Please approve plan as written
LCAR Board:
Please approve the Plan (Water Management Plan) as written.
Thank you,
Lorrie and Steve Smith
Concerned Ridge Harbor Residents
From: Janice Warren [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
LCRA Board,
Page 189 of 250
I urge you to pass the water management plan, that has been worked on for the
last 17 months, without changes.
Sincerely,
Janice L Warren
Mendenhall Ranch
HLMN Member
From: Rick Goodman [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the Plan
Pass the WMP Plan !!!
Thank You
Rick Goodman
1800 Plateau Vista Blvd
Apt 18207
Round Rock, TX 78664
512-626-2529
[email protected]
From: LVM Service [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: MWP
region.
Page 190 of 250
To: WMP
Subject: watermanagementplan
as aresident ofthe lake travisarea,iurge the lcratopassthe newly
adoptedrevisionstothe plan. water needs for an exploding populationhave
tocomebeforecentury oldfarm ingagreements.thankyou
From: John Oakes [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Please Pass New Water Management Plan
Dear Sir or Madam,
We strongly urge you to pass the new Water Management Plan immediately!
The past ways are totally unacceptable and are no longer workable in
21st century Texas. We cannot continue to mismanage our precious and
dwindling water resources. Just look at our lakes, rivers, creeks and
streams right now. WE NEED A NEW WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TO BE PUT IN
PLACE RIGHT AWAY!
Respectfully,
John and Ann Oakes
Tow, Texas
From: lala land [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WMP PLAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: laura mcmillan [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WMP PLAN!!!!!!!!!!
Page 191 of 250
From: Parker Pucci [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WMP PLAN!!!!!!!!!!
From: Laura Mcmillan [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WMP PLAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WMP PLAN!!!!!
From: Tim Parston [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
What the heck!! You held an unpublicized meeting. You took a position with only two of the four
stakeholder groups that helped put together the management plan. You do not listen to constituents
living along LCRA jurisdiction. You impact the economy of our area, sell water to rice farmers at a
fraction of the cost you sell it to us. Hmmm. Sounds like a class action suit is brewing against the LCRA
and all of it board members. To be held personably accountable.
Tim Parston
17912 Crystal Cove
Jonestown, TX 78645
512-382-1865 (h)
512-656-4011 (m)
Page 192 of 250
From: David Alger [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
David Alger
320 Flightline
Lago Vista, TX 78645
New email [email protected]
830-693-0202 Home
512-751-1793 Cell
From: Denise Roeder [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Please do the right thing!
Dear Sirs:
I am a property owner on Lake Travis and I have purchased land on the lake to call my home for
retirement when there was water in the lake. We reside in Houston and hope to build soon with hopes
that the water will rise soon. We trust that you will do the right thing and approve the original
consensus version of the WMP. We need you to support us and put the beauty back in area "THE
WATER."
We appreciate your help and all your support to keep the lake filled with water.
Sincerely,
Denise and Gary Roeder
[email protected]
281-352-4272
Page 193 of 250
To: WMP
Subject: STOP THE WMP PLAN!!!!!!!!!!!
From: David Alger [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: storage for rice farmers
I am strongly against lowering the minimum acre footage to 1 million. I realize drought can be tough on
the rice farmers , but it is also tough on the many businesses that depend on Lake travis and Buchanan
for other purposes. I think the minimum should be RAISED from the current 1.2 million.
Sincerely,
David Alger
320 Flightline
New email [email protected]
830-693-0202 Home
512-751-1793 Cell
From: David Wylie [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Please.
Thank you,
David Wylie
12001 Mira Mesa Dr.
Austin, TX 78732
[email protected]
(512) 633-5873
From: Jim Rankin [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Page 194 of 250
Please, we need this plan in place for our future water needs.
Jim Rankin
3216 Harris Park Ave
Austin, TX 78705
From: Timothy Tucker [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Plan
PASS THE WMP Plan!!
Tim Tucker
From: Jim Alton [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Many local businesses rely on Lake Travis as a recreational area. Please do not send our water to the
rice farmers down stream. This will cause many of the businesses to go under. Please consider your
original proposal to keep plenty of water in Lake Travis.
From: Nancy Lerner [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS the WMP for the LCRA
Please, as a resident in Spicewood, Texas, and a concerned Texan, worried about the lack of water for
citizens, recreation and business - PLEASE PASS THE WMP on February 22nd. I URGE YOU TO PASS
THIS PLAN.
Thank you,
Nancy Lerner
Page 195 of 250
From: Douglas Allen [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Fwd: LCRA Water Management Plan ----(Resend with correction made)
I am sending this e-mail to express my STRONG request for your vote to PASS the TCEQ approved
Water Management Plan that was developed by the
entire 16 member stakeholder group.
I am very concerned about LCRA's ability to continue to protect and deliver the precious water resources
needed for the "firm water" customers in the Austin and Highland Lakes regions during periods of
extreme draught. Now is not the time to become blinded by profit driven motives of "second crop"
water releases at the expense of firm water commitments that literally supply life support to the people
and communities in the Austin and Highland Lakes.
I was a not member of the "16 - stakeholder group", but I do believe that strong consideration should be
given to using alternate ground water resources for the "down river" rice farmers. This could include a
negotiated support program to help reduce the financial impact for the additional power required to
pump ground water to their fields. Bottom line, there must be a laser focus by the LCRA on preserving
our critically short water resources for firm water customers and communities.
Douglas O Allen, Jr.
111 Del Mar Drive
Buchanan Dam, Tx. 78609
cell ph: 979-665-2249
From: Paul Kronbergs [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP
Pass the WMP as written and agreed to at the stakeholders meeting now do not delay.
Respectfully
Page 196 of 250
Paul O. Kronbergs
From: sm [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
PLEASE VOTE ON AND PASS THE NEW WMP!
S Mason
From: Scott [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Please come up with a new water management plan to keep the lakes full!
Scott Schneider
[email protected]
512-422-4551
From: carl russworm [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Water Management Plan for the Highland Lakes
Dear LCRA,
As a native Texan born in Burnet, TX I am concerned about our Highland Lakes.
Specifically, Lake Buchanan.
It's frightening to see Buchanan drop to the level it has in the recent past. It
severely hampers recreational and business activities for many of my friends and
family.
All for Rice Farmers down stream that are getting cheap water to sustain their
way of life. A fairly wealthy 'way of life,' as I understand it.
Page 197 of 250
As the population here in Central Texas expands, I believe it's time to reprioritize how our limited resource is utilized before it's sold cheaply to
others that could easily afford new water sources of their own. Or, more
importantly, determine if their means of income is cost effective without the
price breaks they now enjoy to sustain their crops.
As a local resident of Burnet, I can assure you that my one letter to you is
representative of no less than 100 similar opinions.
I would like to know I've been heard.
fitting.
So, a response from you only seems
respectfully,
Carl Russworm
512-755-0120
From: David Belote [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
As a resident of Volente, I am very concerned about the future of water in our lake and my well. Please
pass WMP plan to help with this.
Thank you, Kristi Belote
From: Pat L Garner [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Bob Webbon
Subject: Water Management Plan Vote
As a property owner in Spicewood and on Lake Travis, a place I have enjoyed and
cherished for over 40 years, I urge you to please adopt the water management plan
and preserve the highland lake system. Clearly old policies and practices have
not worked and new measures need to be employed to make the pattern fit the
cloth.
Sincerely,
Pat L. Garner
Spicewood, TX
Page 198 of 250
From: Carla Lott [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Vote for WMP and save our water supply
LCRA... IT IS UP TO YOU TO SAVE OUR WATER
SUPPLY!!!!!
It is time that the LCRA pays attention to ALL important factors affecting the lakes.
We need a water source that is pure for all of us to drink and we need the water for basic needs of life.
We think it is a luxury that the rice farmers continue to receive cheap water. We need a plan that is fair
and equitable to all, but first to the people that drink this water. We need to maintain and ensure a safe
water supply.
Your decisions cannot be political BUT FACT based so when I read that the rice farmers have $1 million
dollars for lobbying in Texas, I am absolutely outraged that they can sway who really gets to use this
water and what is most important. This brings me to the next point of many times in asking the LCRA for
a ruling on things that seem logical to our protection of these lakes and then we hear back from LCRA
that this isn't your mission or your role. I think that the LCRA needs to step up and adjust their mission to
face the very real threat to our water source. Twenty years ago or even ten years ago, we did not have
highways and neighborhoods very near our lakes as we do today. We have a vibrant economy around the
lakes that bring income into the City of Austin. (The recent study has been done). The LCRA has never
had to consider these things when Austin was a sleepy little college town. The threat to our water is very
real and as you are hearing from many concerned people today, you cannot ignore us and follow on with
your current mission statement.
We will copy the lake interest points from the Texas Water Coalition as we feel they have studied the
water issues and are raising flags where they need to be raised. We agree with all that they are asking of
the LCRA and the State of Texas:
INDUSTRY.
of water.
Page 199 of 250
 Limiting open supply to 273,000 af. Open supply is the practice of not restricting
storage level.
restricted.
 Setting the lakes' minimum combined storage level at amount needed to supply firm
water needs for one year. 350,000 at in the WMP is TOO RISKY; lakes fought for a
 Using the environmental flow criteria developed in studies completed in 2008 and using
two trigger points, January 1 and June 1, for determining in stream flow releases. The criteria
were developed to help meet the environmental needs of the river and Matagorda Bay.

Accepting an anytime cutoff of stored water when combined storage reaches 600,000 AF

tourism

Page 200 of 250

o Accurate LCRA reporting of lake-related data that use real-time information, not averages
From: Frank & Sherry Closner [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: JK Tedder
Subject: Comment on the Water Management Plan
Attached is my comment on the revision to the Water Management Plan.
Page 201 of 250
BONANZA BEACH
Property Owners Association
February 8, 2012
Public Comment to the LCRA Board of Directors
Regarding: Water Management Plan Update
Board Members:
The Bonanza Beach Property Owners Association appreciates the LCRA Board Members
creation of the Stakeholder Committee, representing major interests in the Colorado River basin,
and their production of a “consensus” Water Management Plan. This Stakeholder Committee
also was entrusted to make recommendations to the Emergency Drought Response plan.
The new Water Management Plan was suppose to be presented to the Board for approval in
January, 2012, and Bonanza Beach Property Owners Association members were present to
support its’ adoption. We understand that an amendment to the plan, by LCRA staff and
agricultural interests, is to be presented to the Board prior to plan approval at the February, 2012,
Board meeting. Since over twelve months of work by the Stakeholders Committee went into
reaching a consensus for the plan, we would suggest that this last minute change by a few
interests be rejected.
The Bonanza Beach Property Owners Association supports immediate adoption of the new
Water Management Plan at the February Board meeting.
We would also recommend that work begin immediately on a new Water Management Plan to
address the many challenges facing LCRA water customers and the continuing drought.
Sincerely,
Frank W. Closner, President
Bonanza Beach Property Owners Association
[email protected]
Page 202 of 250
From: Tracey Hime [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Dear LCRA Board,
Please take the time to pass the WMP plan.
Thanks,
Tracey Hime
[email protected]
From: Sandy Marshall [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP plan
Please pass the WMP Plan
From: Burk, Victor [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Cathy Holstead
Subject: Comments on Proposed Water Management Plan
To the LCRA Board of Directors,
I support the changes proposed in the new Water Management Plan (WMP). These changes
address many of the problems faced by LCRA but the changes do not go far enough. I was
shocked to learn that agricultural water use accounted for about 70% of the total annual water
use from 2000 to 2010. Water for agricultural use is important but must be balanced with water
for other uses. LCRA should significantly curtail agricultural water use as well as future water
sales to municipalities and industrial users that do not currently have firm contracts. Failure to
do so will cause permanent economic damage to municipalities, businesses owners and home
owners on the lakes. When water levels drop to the point that public boat ramps are closed,
Page 203 of 250
businesses around the lakes lose customers and suffer economic losses, municipalities
experience significant decreases in sales tax receipts, property owners are deprived of the
intended uses of their properties, and hundreds of people lose their jobs. These are
unacceptable consequences of LCRA’s prior decisions to allow water levels in the lakes to drop
in order to provide water for agricultural use. Now is the time to take action on behalf of the
majority of the people who live or work on Lake Buchanan, Lake Travis and the Colorado River.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Victor Burk
6001 Circle J Loop
Marble Falls, TX 77654
From: Wes Rowe [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the plan!
Even though the new plan isn’t perfect we must throw out what is currently in place. The
way you guys allowed LT to get where it’s at today can never happen again…and the
drought is only part of the equation.
Wes Rowe
Lakeway TX
From: Doreen Ruffalo [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
Pass the WMP plan!!!!!
From: Kimbra Henry [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Plan
Page 204 of 250
Kim Henry
Keller Williams Realty
512-585-4635
From: B. Jeff Lester Jr [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Plan
Importance: High
Please PASS THE WMP PLAN. It is imperative to have a responsible and
effective water conservation plan in place going forward.
Jeff Lester
Lakeway, Texas
From: Sandy Neilson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Please Pass the Water Management Plan
Dear LCRA Representatives & Board —
Please pass the Water Management Plan, as it stands without any new adjustments. It's the right thing
to do.
As you know, Lake Travis is a 63.75 mile long body of water.
These are pictures at the 47 Mile Marker at from Turkey Bend.
Normally the lake is almost 3/4 of a mile wide at this spot & 30-50 feet deep.
Today there is a puddle running 30 feet across & no more than 4-6 inches deep in most places —
stagnating in some areas.
Page 205 of 250
Nearly 20 miles — 30% of the length of of Lake Travis are worse than this, bone dry, but a trickle.
Tragic is not a sufficient term. Our neighbors in Spicewood have run out of drinking water. People in
our
neighborhood are showering with buckets in the shower in order to save water for their ancient oak
trees.
Next maybe for drinking.
What more do we need to do?
I ask that you please pass the WMP with no changes. We need to get our lake back to a healthy state
for all purposes.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sandy Neilson
'72 Olympic Triple Gold Medalist
830-693-8326
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Picture on left full (taken from elevated hillside) far above the lake
Picture on right 30' wide stream approx. 6" deep taken standing at 675' level — lake is at 627'
Earlier this year we had an LCRA representative boat up the lake to visit our
area.
He was genuinely surprised at having to beach his boat and walk a good part
of the way. What will happen next?
Page 206 of 250
From: Peter Zwart [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
My family and I have been taking summer vacations at Lake Travis for over 20
years and have owned property there for the last 4 years. We have watched the
floods and the droughts but I believe that LCRA has missed two critical issues
that has developed over the last 20 years. Explosive growth in the Austin area
is causing an increasing need for water and Lake Travis recreation has become big
business for Texas. These factors need to be accounted for in your future plans.
We need a new plan that addresses these issues and we urge you to pass this plan
now. Rice can be imported, water can't.
Thank you
Pete and Eileen Zwart
From: Randy Adams [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: 2012 Water Management Plan
Board of Directors, the LCRA board is charged to serve the users of the Colorado river and the lakes
associated with the river. Your Mission Statement which should govern your actions, states that you will
provide public services to your customers and communities and to protect the natural resources. Your
actions do not live up to your appointed Mission Statement. In fact you appear to hide behind closed
doors to justify the release of water to rice farmers that represent only a small portion of the
community and customers. This is contrary with your own Mission Statement.
As a resident of Houston and only an occasional user of the lakes along the Colorado river, it amazes me
to see the massive fluctuation in water levels and the impact it has on the businesses in the Lake Travis
area. The fluctuation also impacts the wildlife and aquatic life in the stream and lakes associated with
the Colorado river. Get out of the closed doors and take a look at the actual impact! Again this
contradicts your environment commitment in your own policy statement on water resources.
The Central Texas Water Coalition has pointed out many facts about the economic impact Lake Travis
has for Travis County and the small impact the three counties growing rice have on the Texas economy.
Your action to ignore your purpose to provide water management and water conservation as stated in
your board policy goes against your appointed duties. When are you going to stand behind your own
Page 207 of 250
policies and the voice of so many people affected by your decisions? Instead you have chosen to hide
behind closed doors and only listen to a few farmers who provide little back to Texas, the state that you,
the Travis county residents and many others have loved and supported for years. Please do what is right
and respect the rights of the landowners, business people, tourist and the entire community that uses
the God given water that you manage.
Randy Adams
From: Sheri Munsch [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP plan
Sheri Munsch
Lake Travis resident
From: John Lemaux [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: New WMP
Hello,
The new WMP plan must contain provisions that will protect Central Texas economic and environmental
interests. Economic data shows how important the Highland Lakes and local streams are for a vibrant
economy. Maintaining lake levels and assuring proper river flows will also keep coastal bays and
esturaries healthy. I've read that nearly 70% of the water sold by the LCRA was used for downstream
irrigation and industry. This is simply not sustainable. The LCRA has a responisibility to the people and
economy of Central Texas. It needs to put in place real measures that will protect our water and this
means drastically cutting back on the amount of water sold downstream. Real triggers need to be put in
place during periods on low rainfall that will make water more expensive and will also curtail the
amount of water that can be sold. Even during periods of abundant rainfall more water should be
retained in the Highland Lakes simply to meet the demands of a growing population. The LCRA needs to
put the economic and environmental prosperity of Central Texas ahead wealthy industries and large
farms.
Thank you.
John Lemaux
Austin, TX
Page 208 of 250
From: Valorie Waggoner [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the new WMP
We have been homeowners on the Sandy Creek arm of Lake Travis since 2006. Due to the current
drought situation, we have watched our property value decrease approximately 30%! This is devastating
in an already difficult economic time. We urge you to pass the new WMP to protect our lakes and
property values. The past/current management plan is not working and causing harm to individual
families, businesses, properties and wildlife. Please take our opinion into consideration and pass the new
WMP.
Thank you,
Valorie and Sean Waggoner
17903 Cross Street
Jonestown, TX 78645
From: Jim McRoberts [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Please pass the WMP Plan as written
Thanks,
Jim McRoberts
From: JIMMIE MCKELLER [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
Pass the wmp plan!!
Sent from my iPhone
Page 209 of 250
From: Sam Spence [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Importance: High
Please pass the Water Management Plan!
Thank you,
Sam Spence
From: John Caravanserai [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Kathleen White (LCRA); Lori Berger (LCRA); Sandy Kibby (LCRA)
Subject: WMP PLan
Dear board members,
Please "Pass the WMP plan "
Thank you'
John Waller-property owner snce 1978,Volente
From: Greg Habel [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
"PASS THE WMP PLAN!" .......PLEASE!
From: Michael Roberts [mailto:[email protected]]
Page 210 of 250
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the plan
LCRA must pass this plan. We have got to get water back into the lake and keep it there. We will have a
good presence at the 22nd meeting. Hope you all will have some good answers.
Mike Roberts
Secretary
Lakeside Beach Subdivision
From: dave [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Board; WMP
Subject: Water Management Plan -Comment
To all LCRA Board members,
Please pass the Water Management Plan today without any of the amendments offered by the RICE
farmers interest, including your own Staff.
A very concerned Highland Lake resident.
David Stephens
718 S. Chaparral
Burnet, Tx 78611
From: Judy Graci [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: public comments
I sent this in last night but needed to correct a figure, please replace my comment with this one.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE WMP
In 1998, the LCRA projected Lake Travis to reach a low lake level of
577msl during a repeat of the drought of the mid 1950’s. Would we be
there today without the fall rains of 2009? What does Lake Travis look
Page 211 of 250
like another 50 feet lower? I hope we don’t see it. Please pass the WMP
and start the next WMP process after the proposed plan is adopted.
Between April and October of 2011 Lake Travis dropped 35 feet and Lake
Buchanan 20 feet. Irrigation used 465,000af. There’s now 760,000af left
in the lakes. How can this go on?
There has to be water in the lakes to manage it.
The 2012 Region K State Water Plan has its primary water management
strategies in the LCRA/SAWS project. The strategies included 202,000af
of conservation and other programs for irrigation including: conveyance
improvements, conjunctive use of groundwater, and the development of
new rice varieties. Since the LCRA/SAWS project was canceled years ago,
are these still the water management strategies for Region K?
Also, what is the progress of the LCRA/City of Austin joint effort to
acquire additional water resources?
Let’s all work together to provide water resources and a water
management plan that are fair and equitable basin wide.
Thank you for receiving the public comment,
Judy Graci
From: Chris Roussel [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Water plan
a consensus Water Management Plan that was acceptable to all 4 groups of stakeholders. With vastly
Environmentalists, and The Lakes stakeholders could reach this consensus.
region.
Regards,
Chris Roussel, CEO
Page 212 of 250
From: Ron Slimp [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
John Franklin (LCRA); Jett Johnson (LCRA); Sandy Kibby (LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); Buddy
Schrader (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA); Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); John Dickerson
(LCRA)
Subject: Pass The WMP As Wrtten!
To:
The WMP Chairman and to the LCRA BOARD:
TIMOTHY TIMMERMAN, Chair
REBECCA A KLEIN, Vice Chair
KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE,Secretary
LORI BERGER
JOHN M. FRANKLIN
JETT J. JOHNSON
SANDY KIBBY
TOM MARTINE
MICHAEL MCHENRY
Ray Gill
BUDDY SCHRADER
FRANKLIN (SCOTT) SPEARS, JR.
STEVE K BALAS
J. SCOTT ARBUCKLE
JOHN C. DICKINSON III
Please pass this plan as written.
I'm a Very Concerned Spicewood Home & Property Owner in Winderemere Oaks. We Need Your Help!
Ron Slimp
800 Coventry Road
Spicewood, TX 78669
Cell: 512-633-8548
From: McDaniel, Steve [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS the WMP Plan
PASS the WMP Plan please
Page 213 of 250
Stephen A. McDaniel
9511 Harbor Dr
Jonestown, TX 78645
(512)992-0035
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 6:30 AM
To: WMP
Please pass the plan as written.
Evin G. Dugas
Lakeway, Texas
www.HouseDefects.com
Sent from my iPhone
From: Mark Balok [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Please do the responsible thing for our community and future generations to come, and PASS THE
WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN!!!
Mark Balok
To: WMP
Page 214 of 250
Janet Dugas
Sent from my iPhone
From: paul rolfe [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: fair water contract
Please pass a fair water management plan for the folks living in the Central Texas region of the state.
The lack of water in this area has devistation on those who live here, visit here and call this place home.
There seems to be too much water being sent down stream for rice farmers to grow their crops, control
their weeds, and waste this natural resource.
If the water in the highland lakes get any lower, you will cause a sterile lake for fishing and will never
come back to draw sporting of this source.
PLEASE PASS A FAIR CONTRACT.
Paul Rolfe
From: Kerry J Neal [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
I whole heartfelt approve of the new water management proposals but they are not
enough. Water released to rice farmers should be addressed to take in current
situations AND not simply abide by old out dated criteria. Who needs rice if
water restrictions in the home will give you no water to prepare it in! Some
common sense us necessary here. The economic devastation of draining our lakes
for crops that are in huge surplus does not make sense. Please address these
issues.
Sent from kerry's iPhone
Page 215 of 250
From: Scott Armstrong [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Water Management Plan (WMP) vote
To LCRA,
As a local resident and lake lover, I ask that you approve the original concensus version of the WMP.
Thanks,
Scott Armstrong
To: WMP
Subject: WMP vote
As a Travis County and Lake Travis property owner, we are asking that the original consensus version of
the WMP be passed. NOT THE REVISED VERSION! Please represent our interests and do the right thing
by treating all stakeholders equally.
Lee and Jayne Grote
From: KIM MEYERS [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP; Steve Balas (LCRA); Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA);
Buddy Schrader (LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); Sandy Kibby (LCRA); Thomas Martine (LCRA); Ray Gill
(LCRA); Lori Berger (LCRA); John Franklin (LCRA); Jett Johnson (LCRA); Timothy Timmerman (LCRA);
Rebecca Klein (LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA)
Subject: WMP
PLEASE PASS THE WMP!
From: Frank Luu [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Pass the WMP plan please
Frank Luu
17902 Crystal cove
Jonestown TX
Page 216 of 250
From: Donna Garrison [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: New Water Plan that will bring Texas into the 21st Century!
LCRA Board,
Please make a “New Water Plan your #1 Priority”, the only reason you exist is to manage water and it is
not supposed to be about your greed to sell more and more water. Texas has an antiquated water plan
developed decades before anyone anticipated population growth, water becoming scarce or La Nina’s
and global warming. To look at what has been done to the city of Austin, waterfront real estate
property values (and they have not lowered our taxes), the 3.4 billion recreation and tourism business
all so that a few rice farmers with 60 years of lobbyists can rape the state of Texas? Taxpayers are
waking up to the mismanagement and expect immediate accountability of the LCRA. If this is not done
immediately, taxpayers need to call for the immediate audit of the LCRA by our legislature! Like
everything else in politics - “Where is the Accountability” for the damages?”
I have owned waterfront property on Lake Travis for over 25 years. I am a licensed real estate broker,
specializing in waterfront. I own a 24 year old vacation rental business that has been decimated by 3 of
the last 4 years of drought combined with selling water to rice farmers that not only have received
government taxpayer subsidies but have crop insurance when they incur any profit interruption. What
happens to all of us business owners in the highland lakes? What happens to our property values due to
your mismanagement? What happens to the City of Austin’s growth when they can not provide water
or power, all for a few rice farmer’s? This is Insane!
Please turn your immediate attention to a “New 21st Century Water Plan for Texas”! We need change
and accountability NOW!!!
Donna Garrison
Broker/Owner
Austin Lakeside Properties
From: Alyson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Page 217 of 250
PASS THE WMP PLAN!
Alyson Kirchner
From: Louis Pardo [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP Plan
Given the current status of our Highland Lakes it makes sense to pass the
proposed WMP plan. I hope that the LCRA Board tempers its decision with wisdom.
Louis A. Pardo
Volente, TX
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: Steve Hamblin [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Please pass the WMP plan to protect Lake Travis. I am a concerned citizen and
resident of the Lake Travis area.
Thank you,
Steve Hamblin
From: Todd and Patti Clayton [mailto:[email protected]]
Subject: WMP
All,
PASS THE WMP PLAN...please.
Thank you.
Patti & Todd Clayton
Catalina fleet 69, Lake Travis
Page 218 of 250
From: Michael (Doc) Weiner [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: NO TWEAKS!
Please pass the wmp plan without the proposed "tweaks".
The lake is
severely stressed and the municipalities it supplies and lake-associated
businesses will need as much water conserved as possible in the face of
the likely continuing drought and future droughts.
-Michael (Doc) Weiner
4607 Agarita Cove #1
Austin, TX 78734
512-266-1188
From: Ty Ball [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP as written with NO TWEAKS.
Please pass the WMP as written with NO TWEAKS.
Thanks - a concerned Lake Travis community resident.
Ty Ball
From: judy krasner [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Vote for the Plan without changes
I respectfully request that you vote for the plan as written and “NO” to the proposed changes to the
LCRA plan that would allow the rice farmers more water.
At a time when management of our water resources is so critical, it is inconceivable that more water
would be allocated to the rice farmers. The rice farmers have access to other water resources that we
do not. As we face the continuation of severe drought, it would be prudent to carefully manage and
Page 219 of 250
monitor the water we do have.
Sincerely,
Judith C. Krasner
203 Quail Run Ct.
Spicewood, TX 78669
To: WMP
PASS THE WMP PLAN !!!!!!!! Thank you..From Me & Very Many Others!
Spicewood Tx, Windermere Oaks Subd here, and many others…Have a nice
day..hope this is all resolved soon for everyone!
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP as written NO TWEAKS
Frank Plemons
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP as written with NO TWEAKS"
Pass the WMP as written with NO TWEAKS"
From: Heins, Marshall [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: LCRA. WMP
I have been closely following the actions of LCRA leadership and board over the
last 18 months. I feel the WMP, as drafted, was more than fair to all customers
and LCRA constituents. If there are recent modifications to the WMP which were
not vetted via public forum ,and result in favoritism for special interests
groups, the LCRA leadership will have failed as a fair and equitable governing
body and all future management decisions will be negatively impacted due to a
lack of trust. Stay with the WMP that was created with the public input, not
special interests in mind. Thank you. MBH
Page 220 of 250
From: Paula Pierce [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Urgent: Water Mngt Request
I represent The Reserve at Lake Travis on South Shore and Montechino on North
Shore and many home owners on Lake Travis in real estate marketing and sales. I
beg you to keep our lake levels constant. We are no longer a second home lake but
primary residence. Real estate values both for commercial & residential are in
crisis! Progress and Investor confidence in our cities growth are at a halt due
to lake levels, not economy. Sad that we depend on floods and the tragedy that
comes from flooding to get our lake back to a normal level, feeding our residents
and wildlife. God help us this summer if we have more wildfires as there is NO
water to fight the fires....
Paula Pierce
TX-Licensed Realtor
727-599-3111
Sent from iPhone
From: Linda Schaeffer [mailto:[email protected]]
To: Sandy Kibby (LCRA)
Cc: Pat Trojanowsky
Subject: LCRA Water Management Plan - Action Plan
From: Pat Trojanowsky
Dear Sandy ,
Please approve the Water Management Plan as written on February 22, 2012.
Delaying the Water Management Plan is detrimental to the lakes, the City of Austin and surrounding
communities, property values and our county property tax base in the Lake Travis area of Travis County
and Burnet County.
Thanks for your help.
Patrick Trojanowsky
334 Quail Run Ct.
Spicewood,Texas 77669
Page 221 of 250
From: judy krasner [mailto:[email protected]]
To: John Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: Vote for the Plan without Changes
Dear Mr. Dickerson,
I respectfully request that you vote for the plan as written and “NO” to the proposed changes to the
LCRA plan that would allow the rice farmers more water.
At a time when management of our water resources is so critical, it is inconceivable that more water
would be allocated to the rice farmers. The rice farmers have access to other water resources that we
do not. As we face the continuation of severe drought, it would be prudent to carefully manage and
monitor the water we do have.
Sincerely,
Judith C. Krasner
203 Quail Run Ct.
Spicewood, TX 78669
Subject: Re: FW: WMP vote - Reply from LCRA Board Chair Timothy Timmerman
Thank you for your response and concern. We are aware of the record-breaking years we have had and
that everyone is affected. It does sound from your explanation that LCRA did what it was supposed to.
However, we have heard that the original contracts stated that water was only to be released
downstream IF ALL THE HIGHLAND LAKES WERE FULL. Is that true? Lake Buchanan has not been full in
over four years and water has been, and is still being, released every-other day. As residents who walk
the bank regularly, we see the level continuing to fall. EVERY DAY that nothing is done effects us
tremendously. For a long time we were unaware of the situation and naively thought the lake was so
low because of the drought. As we have become more educated on the reality, we have become aware
of the amount and frequency of water being released downstream and how it is effecting our ground
and well water supply. You stated that "the WMP does not discriminate against the Highland Lakes'
interests". At a local meeting an LCRA representative stated that when there was no longer any flow
through the dam (958) that a barge would be put in the lake and the water would be pumped out. We
would disagree that is not discrimination against the Highland Lakes. And if there is no flow how will the
water get from Buchanan to Travis and beyond?
Water is still being released even with the record setting drought we are experiencing."Most farmers"
and "most downstream agriculture" is not ALL. Which ones were not cut of and how much water did
they/are they still receiving? Is one of the recipients the company owned by LCRA? I'm just a simple
country girl but that sure sounds like a conflict of interest to me.
Page 222 of 250
Again, I do appreciate your response and concern and truly hope that the right people will make the
right decisions.
PLEASE PASS THE WMP NOW AND IMMEDIATELY BEGIN WORKING ON THE NEXT ONE.
A concerned resident,
Kim Meyers
512-234-0153
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Timothy Timmerman (LCRA) <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Meyers:
In response to your email of January 15, I sympathize completely with your situation. Central Texas is in
the throes of one of the worst droughts in history and shrinking lake levels, parched lawns and dying
gardens are the norm throughout our basin.
Last year was one of the driest on record and inflows into the Highland Lakes were the lowest ever
recorded. If the forecasters can be believed, we may be in these exceptional drought conditions for
months to come. For most of 2011, LCRA operated under the state approved Water Management Plan
and released water as that plan directed. When the gravity of the situation became clear, we sought –
and received – emergency relief from the state to amend that plan and cut off water for most
downstream agriculture until the lakes begin to refill.
The Water Management Plan does not discriminate against Highland Lakes’ interests. Everyone has
suffered in this drought, and most farmers likely will receive no water this year unless a significant
amount of rain falls.
A new Water Management Plan that gives LCRA flexibility to respond more quickly to changing water
supply conditions and to meet increasing demand from firm water customers in the coming years is
under review. That plan will come before the Board of Directors next month and the public will have an
opportunity to comment on it.
After the Board takes action on the plan, it will be submitted to the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality. We hope the commission will act promptly to approve the proposed changes.
But until that happens, the emergency order cutting off most water for agriculture as long as the
drought persists is in effect the rest of this year. Delaying by one month our vote on the revised Water
Management Plan in no way affected LCRA’s management of the Highland Lakes and Colorado River.
I am as unhappy as anyone to see the sad state of our lakes and the devastation this terrible drought has
caused. But I assure you LCRA is managing the water resources we have professionally, efficiently and
fairly.
Page 223 of 250
Sincerely,
Timothy Timmerman
Chair, LCRA Board of Directors
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:59 PM
To: Board
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: WMP vote
As residents of the Cassie subdivision on the southeast bank of Lake Buchanan in Burnet County my
husband and I have become increasingly concerned about the falling lake level and diminishing level of
our well. The biggest question we have comes from recently learning that the current lake level is only
marginally due to the drought and mostly due to preventable circumstances. Why, knowing the severity
of the drought and the long-term forecast, was more consideration not given to the local residents of
the Highland Lakes? Human as well as wildlife? And what will be done to rectify the situation?
My grandfather and father-in-law bought our lots and the cabins that were here in the late 1960's and
early 1970's. Their intention was for us to have a place where, no matter what, we would be able to
have a garden and fish to feed ourselves. They worked so hard to establish a beautiful yard that we had
for over 30 years. In the last four years we have not been able to water a garden, certainly not a yard.
Now not only is that completely gone, but we have also lost several trees, one more than 150 years
old. If you have any idea how far of a walk it is to reach the water to fish you understand the difficulty
involved. If you have not visited Lake Buchanan, we invite you to our humble home anytime for an upclose look at how we are effected. We have to be very careful about how much water we use everyday
for simple household use. We find it very disturbing that we are constantly worrying about running out
of water while others flood fields with the very same water for weed control.
Why would the people who have lived here 40 years have lowest priority? My husband and I have both
spent all our lives on this very spot and we hope to spend the rest of our lives here. But we are not going
to have that option if our well runs dry. We would have to leave our jobs and our lives. What will happen
to the economy of this entire area if every one's wells are dry?
It's been over four years since we have been able to enjoy any kind of recreation on the lake or had
anything close to "lake front property" yet our property taxes have increased. Why are we paying for
lake front when that is no longer what we have? We have always understood that Buchanan is not a
constant level lake. However the extreme circumstances and overall good should be considered. I know
this is NOT what my grandfather intended.
Page 224 of 250
We are praying every day for rain, but also that you will prove by your vote Wednesday that it isn't just
the ones with the money that get what they want, but that the environment, residents and wildlife of
the Highland Lakes matter just as much.
We desperately ask that you pass the WMP at the Board meeting this Wednesday. Any further delay in
addressing this serious issue could prove irreversibly devastating.
Sincerely,
Rick and Kim Meyers
232 S. Chaparral
Burnet, TX 78611
Kim 512-234-0153
From: Brad Claflin [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Please pass the WMP Plan.
From: Rod Malone [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Dear LCRA Board of Directors.
Please approve the proposed 2010-2020 Water Management Plan as submitted by the Stakeholder
Committee.
Rod Malone
Sail&Ski Center
512-258-0733
Page 225 of 250
[email protected]
From: Joe Fowler [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
At $6.00 an acre, the rice farmers can wait. From my understanding they are covered by federal
subsidaries and insurance while many businesses located on Lake Travis are going under. We can’t
afford to have the lake drop another ten feet or more.
Joe Fowler
512-636-7381
From: John Jordan [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: wmp
I want you to approve the water management plan. We need water in Lake Travis to support the local
economy.
Thanks,
John Jordan
Sail & Ski Center-Lakeway
1106 Ranch Road 620 North
Lakeway, TX 78734
(512)219-2716 office
(512)203-4615 cell
From: John Jordan [mailto:[email protected]]
Page 226 of 250
To: WMP
Committee.
Regards,
John Jordan
Sail & Ski Center-Lakeway
1106 Ranch Road 620 North
Lakeway, TX 78734
(512)219-2716 office
(512)203-4615 cell
From: James Johnson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Attn: LCRA Board of Directors,
I strongly support the water management plan that the LCRA has in front of them submitted by the
Stakeholder Committee.
Urgently and Sincerely,
James Johnson
Boating Lifestyle Consultant
Sail & Ski Center
12971 Research Blvd
Austin, Texas 78750
512-219-2714
From: katheran Acmorsoni [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: water for drinking
Dear Sir or Madam,
Page 227 of 250
Please follow your original plan and process and do not allow the TWEAKS for the
rice farmers. The need to prevent the total loss of drinking water outweighs the
needs of the Rice farmers, as they expected the curtailment of water and they
have CROP INSURANCE for that purpose.
Katheran Acmorsoni
Lago Vista,Tx. 78645
From: Linda Christensen [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Committee.
Linda Christensen
Sail & Ski
12971 Research Blvd.
Austin, TX 78750
512 258-0733
Fax 512 258-9204
www.sailandski.com
From: Mark Hackett [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Jo Tedder
Subject: New Water Management Plan
To the stewards of our water resources,
As you are undoubtedly aware, the current management plan has become antiquated and as a result,
devastated the livelihoods, property values and environmental concerns around the Highland Lakes. So
quite simply, please do the right thing and approve the New Water Management Plan so that all users
dependent upon the Highland Lakes benefit fairly.
Thank You,
Mark Hackett
Page 228 of 250
Owner
Eminence General Contractors LLC
Toll Free: 1-855-ROOF-TEX
Office / Fax: 512-267-7733
Direct: 512-569-5518
www.EminenceRoofingTexas.com
From: Theresa Thompson [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Committee.
Thank you,
Terri Thompson
From: Marilyn Baker [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Committee.
Thanks,
Marilyn Baker
AP/PR Coordinator
Sail & Ski Center
12971 Research Blvd
Austin, TX 78750
Ph:512-219-2706 Fax:512-258-9204
Accounting dept: [email protected]
Page 229 of 250
From: Steven Fenech [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Committee.
Respectfully,
Steven A. Fenech
From: Kennan Halladay [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Committee.
Ken Halladay
[email protected]
The Sail and Ski Center
12971 Research Blvd
Austin, TX 78750
Main 512-219-2724 / Fax 512-258-9204
Page 230 of 250
From: Marilyn Baker [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Committee
Sincerely,
Marilyn M. Baker
610 Palo Alto Lane
Cedar Park, TX 78613
From: Patton, Alan [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Tammy Patton; [email protected]
Subject: Comments on WMP
To whom it may concern: Working in conjunction with the LCRA the Highland Lakes stakeholders
spent 18 months coming up with a concensus Water Management Plan that was acceptable to all 4
groups of stakeholders. With vastly different priorities it was an amazing accomplishment that the
Agriculture, Firm Water Users, Environmentists, and The Lakes stakeholders could reach this concensus.
It’s unbelievable to us that in the current economy in which everyone has cut back that we would be
focused on continuing subsidies to specific groups, AND that you feel you can work behind closed doors
to avoid public comment and/or ridicule because you are not doing the RIGHT thing.
region.
Alan and Tammy Patton
Property owner on Lake Travis
From: Tammy Malone [mailto:[email protected]]
Page 231 of 250
To: WMP
Committee.
Thanks,
Tammy Malone
To: WMP
Subject: Water Management
I have lived in central Texas for 65 years and have great concern for the way
water in the highland lakes is being managed and distributed.
Buy back farmers water rights based on what they pay for them - they have been
getting a great deal for years.
Conserve this water now and in the future in a better manner
We need change by you or the State government if necessary - NOW
Mike Francis
From: Russ Eitel [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
We care about our lake levels as much as you.
Have a great day!
Russ
Page 232 of 250
Russ Eitel, Realtor®, MBA
Certified Luxury Home Marketing Specialist, Platinum REO Equator Specialist & Foreclosure Expert
Keller Williams Realty - Lake Travis Market Center | 1921 Lohmans Crossing | Austin, Texas 78734
(512) 633-1758 Mobile | (512) 276-8800 Office | (512) 410-3684 e-Fax | Email | Web |
Survey- Please tell me how I can improve my customer service!
Follow us:
From: Jon Amberg [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Committee.
Jon Amberg
From: Paul Fenech [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Committee.
Paul
Paul Fenech
The Sail & Ski Center
Parts & Ship Store Mgr
12971 Research Blvd
Austin, Tx 78750
p: 512-219-2725
f: 512-219-2728
Page 233 of 250
[email protected]
www.sailandski.com
From: Mike Brooks [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject:
Approve it please
To: WMP
Cc: Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA)
PASS THE WMP PLAN
From: Rick Redmond [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Wmp plan
Please pass the wmp plan. It is the only plan that makes sence.
Rick Redmond
Phone: 512-422-8866
[email protected]
From: Harry Ransier [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: LAKES BUCHANAN AND TRAVIS WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DROUGHT CONTINGENCY
Page 234 of 250
PLANS
Importance: High
Public comment to the LCRA Board of Directors
Ref: Water Management Plan Update and vote
Dear Board of Directors:
I am sending this email to you to comment on the purposed water management plan which you have
published as scheduled for vote in the next LCRA Board meeting on February 22, 2012.
I am extremely disappointed and disgusted with the recent actions taken in regards to changes made to
the plan by only part of the Stakeholders. I believe the changes lowering the trigger points are
inappropriate and the trigger points should remain as set in the original plan approved by the total
group of Stakeholders. However, I believe an approved plan is vital at this time. I am therefore asking
that you vote to approve the posted Water Management Plan at the upcoming February Board meeting
and immediately put that plan into effect.
Sincerely,
Harry Ransier
700 N Chaparral
Burnet, Texas 78611
From: joel vickery [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Water Management plan
To whom it may concern at the LCRA:
I have worked and lived at Lake Travis for over 30 years.
The impact from the Historic Low Lake Levels have caused a Significant Economic Impact to Mine, and
Many other businesses.
I encourage you to PASS the newly proposed Water Management Plan 2010 - 2020
Concerned citizen,
Joel Vickery
Page 235 of 250
From: Buddy Keller [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
Please approve the WMP.
Paul W. Keller
Keller’s Marina
To: WMP
Subject: Water!!
I am a long time, permanent resident of Windermere, a Hill Country neighborhood. As you may know, our
private water treatment plant depends on the lake maintaining a level high enough for our pumps to pull
water--the lowest level being around 620'. As a family of four, we typically use less than 5,000 gallons of
water per month. We don't water our grass, wash our cars, or waste water in other fashion.
What we are required to do is pay very high property taxes on a lake front lot that has not been "on the
water" for over half of the last ten years we have lived here. We continue to support our community with
our tax dollars, but who is going to support me and the other Hill Country residents when we can no
longer afford to pay the huge water bill increases that are sure to come?? Windermere has already
developed a cost schedule detailing the increases we will have to pay when trucking of water becomes a
necessity. I cannot afford to pay a 200% increase in my water bill.
We are not asking for luxury items--boating, another fancy water park, etc. We are asking for a
responsibly priced necessity of life.
Do what is right for the residents of the Hill Country. Pass the Water Management Plan with something
other than dollar signs in your eyes. Look at the people HERE who need water to live now!
Nicole Gelinas
From: Carrie Lasseter [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA); Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Rebecca Klein (LCRA);
Kathleen White (LCRA); Lori Berger (LCRA); John Franklin (LCRA); Jett Johnson (LCRA); Sandy Kibby
(LCRA); Thomas Martine (LCRA); Ray Gill (LCRA); Michael McHenry (LCRA); Buddy Schrader (LCRA);
Page 236 of 250
Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA); Scott Arbuckle (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: WMP plan
LCRA,
Please pass the WMP plan as it is written.
Thank you,
Carrie Lasseter
From: Michelle Broyles [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WMP PLAN!"
Please save Lake Travis and Pass the WIMP Plan!
Michelle Broyles
[email protected]
512-354-5422
From: Birdie White [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Please pass the WMP Plan without changes. From another who cares about our lakes.
Thank you.
Birdie White, CLA, Paralegal
MARTINEC, WINN, VICKERS & McELROY, P.C.
919 Congress Avenue, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 476-0750/FAX (512) 476-0753
E-MAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
www.mwvmlaw.com
Page 237 of 250
From: Hunter McDonald [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Hunter McDonald
South Austin Marine
(512) 657-0310 mobile
(512) 892-5462 fax
www.SouthAustinMarine.com
From: Angel's Icehouse [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP
As business owners who are highly affected by the low water levels of Lake Travis, we just wanted to
make sure our opinion was heard as well.
Thank you.
Sara Shulman & Mary Blumer, Owners
Angel’s Icehouse
21815 HWY 71 W
Spicewood, TX 78669
512-264-3777
From: Allison, Jerry (US - Philadelphia) [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Pass the WMP !!
Page 238 of 250
Everyone,
I’ve read over a lot of the new WMP and I understand that a consensus and near-consensus has been
reached on the plan. I also understand that after the consensus, additional closed-door meetings were
held with the rice farmers and changes were made to the WMP. I’d like to say I’m shocked, but I’m not.
What I can say is that LCRA has a fiduciary responsibility to their firm water customers to protect their
water supply. According to the WMP, interruptible water must be curtailed before firm water, and I
don’t believe that has happened. However, I see this WMP as a step in the right direction and I
encourage its immediate passage.
I own property along Lake Buchanan and have seen my property values decline right along with the lake
level. I find it hard to justify draining the lake and selling the water to the rice farmers at a loss to hide
what I consider is the real reason for draining the lake…to generate electricity for LCRA. I certainly hope
that enough residents and business owners let their outrage be known so that this practice will stop.
Only then will our property values rebound. Telling is “it will rain” is not prudent water management.
Please pass the WMP at the Feb Board Meeting. It’s not perfect but it’s a huge step in the right
direction.
Thank you.
Jerry
124 W Granite Oaks Dr
Burnet TX 78611
Jerry Allison
Senior Manager
Tax Management Consulting
Deloitte Tax, LLP
Mobile: + 1 610-322-1100
[email protected]
www.deloitte.com
From: Phillip Mitchell [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: PASS THE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN!!!
PASS THE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN!!!
Page 239 of 250
From: GeorgeandKay Wenzel [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
I am a home owner in the Hudson Bend area of Lake Travis and a native Austinite.
I urge the decision makers at LCRA to pass the Water Management Plan.
-Kay Smith
From: Bonnie Starrak [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Committee.
Bonnie Starrak
Communications Manager
Sail & Ski Center
12971 Research BLVD
Austin, TX 78750
(512) 219-2733
From: Kay Smith [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: WMP - please pass it
Hi,
I am employed at a marina on Lake Travis. So, I have a personal and financial interest in what LCRA does
with the water in Lake Travis.
Page 240 of 250
Please pass the Water Management Plan to meet today’s actual usage, water levels, population growth,
etc.
The current plan is woefully inadequate for these modern times.
Thank you,
Kay Smith
Accounting Manager
Briarcliff Marina
Ship Store: 512.264.2666
From: Sybille_rm [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
PASS THE WMP PLAN
Sent from my iPhone
From: Dana Copp [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Dickerson (LCRA)
Subject: Save our lake
PLEASE,...
pass the WMP plan! It's well thought out. We are
residents of the Lake Travis "narrows" and are in for an extended
drought.
Dr. & Mrs. Dana Copp
600 Avenida Serena
Smithwick, TX 78654
From: Greg Buck [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Committee.
Greg Buck
Page 241 of 250
General Manager
Sail&Ski Yacht Club
512-266-2507
From: Suzanne Reid [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Water
To Whom It May Concern,
My husband and I have a home on Lake Travis and are disheartened by the lack of action by the LCRA
board. I don't see how the board can look at themselves in the mirror every morning knowing that so
many businesses who depend on the water levels for survival are being sacrificed for the over indulged
rice farmers! Enough is enough. It is not a time of surplus. Water is getting to a critical point. Water
needs to be cut off to the rice farmers after the water levels reach 660 ft. There are some people who
don't even have drinking water (Spicewood Beach) and are having water trucked in! That is
unbelievable! Why are the rice farmers getting preferential treatment? I will be writing to our local
representatives. This is so wrong! Suzanne Reid, Spicewood, Texas
-Wishing you a great day!
Suzanne
From: Linda Kanewske [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: wmp plan
Pass the wmp plan
Joe and Linda Kanewske
1500 Avenida Serena
Marble Falls, TX 78654
From: Dave Cross [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Water
PASS THE WMP PLAN, PLEASE!
Page 242 of 250
From: Maureen Boehm [mailto:[email protected]]
Subject: Please pass WMP
We own a lot in Northlake Hills, Section 2.
Ed & Maureen Boehm
PO Box 715
Cedar Creek, TX 78612
512-944-3979
509-351-9896 fax
[email protected]
From: Vicki Davis [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Cc: Timothy Timmerman (LCRA); Rebecca Klein (LCRA); Kathleen White (LCRA); Lori Berger (LCRA); John
Franklin (LCRA); Jett Johnson (LCRA); Sandy Kibby (LCRA); Thomas Martine (LCRA); Ray Gill (LCRA);
Michael McHenry (LCRA); Buddy Schrader (LCRA); Scott Spears (LCRA); Steve Balas (LCRA); Scott
Arbuckle (LCRA); John Dickerson (LCRA)
PASS THE WMP PLAN!
May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you
may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Romans 15:13
From: Kat Laird [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Attention: Rebecca S. Motal, General Manager LCRA
First, let me say that I understand what a daunting task you inherited with your appointment last July.
Page 243 of 250
With our current drought conditions and the outlook for the next several years, it would be impossible
to develop a water management plan that satisfies all of the key stakeholders. There simply was not
and will not be enough water to make that a reality. What was allowed to happen in 2011 certainly was
not in the best interest of our communities and was extremely irresponsible as it relates to water
conservation and constructive use of our limited resource. While this may not YET be the worst drought
on record, the population has increased from 161,000 in the metro Austin area in 1950 to over 1.6MM
in the 2007 census, a nearly 1000% increase. That is why our current dilemma is much more critical than
what happened in the 1950's. It is more important than ever for LCRA to have open door discussions
with transparency and collaborate with integrity with the customers and communities impacted by
this dire situation. I was very encouraged and impressed by your leadership in doing so to develop the
initial proposed Water Management plan published in January that supports your mission statement
below.
LCRA mission statement
The mission of the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) is to provide reliable, low-cost utility and public
services in partnership with our customers and communities and to use our leadership and
environmental authority to ensure the protection and constructive use of the area's natural resources.
However, it has recently come to light that the LCRA met behind closed doors with Agriculture and Firm
Water stakeholders, excluding the other stakeholders (ie the Communities), and made changes to the
WMP that would benefit only those in attendance. I have no way of verifying if that is true, but
regardless, it has cast a dark shadow on the process and if verified, would be in direct conflict with your
quote that "Water is a precious, shared and limited resource. It is imperative that we all work together to
use it as wisely as we can."
Working together obviously requires open, honest and often, heart wrenching discussions to achieve
the best solution for our environment and all stakeholders. I strongly suggest implementing the initial
proposed water management plan that engaged all parties. Let us start now working together to
implement water stewardship initiatives, while doing what is possible & responsible to limit the damage
to our farmers and the Eco-system both upstream and downstream from Lake Buchanan & Lake Travis.
Sincerely,
Kat Laird
Spicewood, TX
512-636-7853
From: Mike Klepac [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: Lake Buchanan full level
Hi,
Page 244 of 250
One way to increase your capacity is to go back to the 1020 level being full on Buchanan.
My dates are not exact because I don't remember the year you changed the "full level on Buchanan".
I have owned a place on Buchanan for 19 years. For the first 10 or so years, the full level was 1020.
However, after one of our spring floods about 7-8 years ago that did some damage downstream due to
Buchanan being @ 1020 and rainfall upstream and downsteam that caused flooding, the LCRA changed
the "full" to 1018. This was because the downstream folks were wringing their hands and blaming the
LCRA. The reality was that the 2 foot difference might have given a smaller delay in the flooding, but it
would have still happened.
Since that time I have seen both 1018 and 1020 as full on numerous sites.
I have also seen the lake get to 1020 and the LCRA quickly lower it to 1018 and call it "full".
My point is the amount of water in the lake at 1018 to 1020 is many acre feet. Can you imagine what that
2 foot difference when "full" would make to the level of Buchanan today and to levels in the future?
I think you should go back to the 1020 level as full and it would be accepted due to the drought conditions
that we are in today.
Thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts,
Mike Klepac
From: Al Hostetler [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 4:15 PM
To: WMP
Subject: wmp comments
LCRA
I strongly encourage you to pass the new management plan as it is written. It is essential for those that
live and work within 50 miles of Lake Travis.
Thank you
Al Hostetler
Briarcliff, Tx
From: Mary McAllister [mailto:[email protected]]
Page 245 of 250
Subject: WMP Hydro Language
Comments by
Mary McAllister
3322 Far View Drive
Austin, TX 78730
512 369 3849
[email protected]
The proposed WMP language allows LCRA to sell hydro when such sales may not consistently
serve secondary purposes such as irrigation and/or bay and estuary releases. Specifically, the
hydro language may permit LCRA non-emergency hydro generation utilizing the currently
unused portions of firm contracts. Further, LCRA may have incentives to sell more hydroelectric
from Mansfield than is necessary to respond to ERCOT emergencies because such
hydroelectric sales also generate revenues for otherwise unutilized transmission in addition to
the hydroelectric revenues themselves.
LCRA sells the Mansfield Dam hydroelectric generation into the ERCOT Day Ahead Market as
Ancillary Services, specifically, as Reactive Power. One day prior to "real time" LCRA offers the
Mansfield hydro to ERCOT at a price. ERCOT accepts offers, on the basis of price, and pays
the Ancillary Service providers to stay on the sidelines until called. When called, the Ancillary
Service provider receives the "real time" energy price for the MWs it provides. In an ERCOT
Energy Emergency Alert that price is currently capped at $3,000 MWhr. All of LCRA’s hydro
capacity accounts for less than 1% of ERCOT’s peak energy demand and Ancillary Service
offers exceed ERCOT’s needs. Gas fired generation competes directly with hydro for these
sales. Mansfield 2011 hydro sales during ERCOT Energy Emergency Alert were as follows:
Mansfield Energy Emergency Alert
Sales
Alert
Level
1-3
1
1
1
1
1-2
1
1
1-2
EEA Date MW Sold
2/2/2011
3/23/2011
6/27/2011
8/2/2011
8/3/2011
8/4/2011
8/5/2011
8/23/2011
8/24/2011
552
781
683
400
366
402
399
435
436
Ac Ft
Used
Revenues
984 $950,351.40
1393
$22,228.29
1218 $106,818.85
714 $598,750.67
652 $1,167,815.54
717 $1,244,961.49
712 $908,508.86
776 $673,057.78
778 $878,444.61
Page 246 of 250
4,454
7,944 $6,550,937.49
Alternatively, LCRA could respond to ERCOT’s Energy Emergency Alert by selling into the Real
Time Energy Market. Hydro can go from 0 to maximum capacity in less than 10 minutes. LCRA
could conserve hydro water use and respond to ERCOT emergencies by only selling "real time"
energy when lakes are below recreational levels. While LCRA would then forego nonemergency hydro revenues and corresponding transmission revenues, the saving in AcFt used
for hydro would be significant. During the period from April 11, 2011 to November 20, 2011
when Lake Travis was below 660 feet elevation, LCRA used 160,158 AcFt for non-emergency
hydro generation. This volume is significant compared to the 2011 Highland Inflows of
127,699AcFt. The non-emergency water use may account for about half of the drop in Lake
Travis elevation from April 21, 2011 to November 20, 2011.
In 2011 LCRA incurred significant losses for irrigation. These losses may suggest that all of
LCRA’s hydroelectric generation is not "non-consumptive," and may account for the irrigator’s
complaints that LCRA’s water deliveries do not correspond to requests. The attached Power
Point file containing 2 graphs. The first is a yellow and blue graph. The yellow represents
declining elevations of Lake Travis. The blue line represents AcFt used for hydro generation. If
the water for hydro matched the irrigation requests, the blue line would look like an "M" with 2
peaks in Spring and Fall. Minimum Bay and Estuary flows and releases for City of Austin do not
appear to account for all the non-emergency hydro water use. The second graph shows the
Mansfield hydro revenues in green and the MWs sold in blue.
Mansfield Daily Data
Lake Travis Daily Levels Vs
Mansfield Daily Hyro Flows
670
665
660
655
Daily Lake
650
Levels
645
640
635
630
625
12/6/10
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000 Acre Ft
800 Hdro Flows
600
400
200
0
1/6/11
2/6/11
3/6/11
4/6/11
5/6/11
6/6/11
7/6/11
8/6/11
9/6/11
10/6/11
11/6/11
Dec 2010 thru Nov 2011
Page 247 of 250
Mansfield MWs Sold & Revenues in Dollars
900
$1,400,000.00
$1,244,961.49
800
$1,200,000.00
700
$1,000,000.00
600
$950,351.40
$800,000.00
500
MW s Sold
Revenues in Dollars
Seri es5
Seri es4
MWs
400
$600,000.00
Revenues
inDollars
300
$400,000.00
200
$200,000.00
100
0
12/1/10
$106,818.85
$0.00
1/1/11
2/1/11
3/1/11
4/1/11
5/1/11
6/1/11
7/1/11
8/1/11
9/1/11
10/1/11
11/1/11
Dec 2010 thru Nov 20 2011
Page 248 of 250
From: Russell, Mark [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Please approve the original consensus version of the WMP and not the changes discussed in the
“private” meeting not open to the public.
Mark Russell
Executive Vice President
Branch Manager
Studley
333 Clay Street
Suite 3700
Houston, TX 77002
t 713.237.5504
f 713.522.3938
Page 249 of 250
From: Laurie Foxx [mailto:[email protected]]
To: WMP
Subject: do the right thing
LCRA,
do the right thing and approve the original consensus version of the
WMP!
Thank you,
Laurie, Kevin, Madison and Jason Foxx
Page 250 of 250
l
lAw OFFICES
OF
ROGER
P. NEVOIA
P.o. Box 2103
Austin, Texas 78768
(512) 499'()500
(512) 499'()575 (fax)
[email protected]
February 9, 2012
Rebecca S. Motal
General Manager
Lower Colorado River Authority
3700 Lake Austin Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78703
Re:
Comments on the January 23, 2012 Draft Water Management Plan and Drought
Contingency Plans
Dear Ms. Motal:
This letter is written on behalf of Garwood Irrigation Company ("Garwood") and the
LehrerlLewis interests, owners of approximately 17,500 acres ofland within LCRA's Garwood
Division service area ("Lehrer/Lewis").
Garwood and Lehrer/Lewis submit the following
comments on the January 23, 2012 Draft Water Management Plan and Drought Contingency
Plans (the "draft Plan"):
1.
The draft Plan does not correctly reflect the contractual obligations of LCRA
under the two agreements between Garwood and LCRA that govern LCRA' s
supply of water to landowners and irrigators within the Garwood service area.
The first agreement is dated December 10, 1987 (the "1987 Agreement"), and the
second agreement is dated July 20, 1998 (the "1998 Agreement").
The 1998
Agreement is the Purchase Agreement by which LCRA acquired assets of
Garwood.
About a year ago, by letter dated March 28, 2011, the undersigned submitted to
LCRA a draft summary of what Garwood and LehrerlLewis believed to be the
applicable contractual obligations of LCRA under the two contracts. A copy of
that letter and the draft summary are submitted with and incorporated in these
comments.
Since then, LCRA has not provided us any analysis explaining
how/why/in what way the draft summary is incorrect. We continue to believe the
draft summary is correct.
One of the fundamental points made in the summary is that the terms of the 1987
Agreement allow LCRA to interrupt the supply of stored water to the Garwood
service area only if, and only to the extent that, LCRA also interrupts the supply
of stored water to all users of stored water for irrigation. "All" means "all,"
regardless of whether LCRA considers its contract with any user to be a "firm"
Rebecca S. Motal
February 9, 2012
Page 2
contract, or an "interruptible" contract, or some other kind of contract, regardless
of what the contract says or does not say about curtailment, and regardless of
what the user pays for the water. The reasons and consideration for these terms
are set forth on the face of the 1987 Agreement, and those terms define the
interruptible commitment made by LCRA to the landowners and irrigators within
the Garwood service area as contemplated by Paragraph 2B(3) of LCRA's
Certificate of Adjudication Nos. 14-5482 for Lake Travis and 14-5478 for Lake
Buchannan.
These terms cannot be ignored. If LCRA has chosen to make
unconditional firm commitments of stored water for irrigation to others, that
decision has consequences applicable to the interruptible commitment for the
Garwood service area. For so long as any so-called "firm" irrigation commitment
of stored water remains in effect and is not being curtailed, the supply of stored
water to Garwood also may not be curtailed.
Accordingly, Garwood and Lehrer/Lewis respectfully request that LCRA revise
the draft Plan in one of two ways: either (1) modify the details set forth in the
draft Plan to correctly reflect LCRA's contractual obligations under the two
contracts that govern the supply of water to the Garwood service area, as set forth
in the draft summary submitted on March 28, 2011; or (2) remove all details in
the draft Plan of how LCRA proposes to supply water to the Garwood service
area, and instead recite simply that the supply of water, including any curtailment
or reductions of supply, will be done in accordance with LCRA's contractual
obligations. For either alternative, we would be pleased to work with your staff in
an effort to come to agreement on the necessary revisions. We would also be
willing to discuss possible amendments to the two agreements between Garwood
and LCRA that would be mutually beneficial to LCRA, Garwood, and all
landowners and irrigators within the Garwood service area, as well as other users
of water in the Basin.
2.
The draft Plan does not reflect LCRA's obligation to offset the adverse impacts
on downstream. irrigation operations resulting from additional commitments of
stored water made by LCRA after final judgment was entered in the Adjudication.
In the Adjudication, the staff of the Texas Water Commission, a predecessor
agency of the current TCEQ, as well as others, asserted that LCRA' s water rights
for Lakes Buchanan and Travis should be reduced so that LCRA would not be
authorized to supply in anyone year more than the amount determined to be the
combined firm yield of those two lakes. It was discovered, or revealed, however,
that LCRA likely had already committed more than the combined firm yield, after
taking into consideration the commitments of stored water made to the
downstream irrigation operations that date back to the initial authorizations for the
lakes. By various agreements, including the 1987 Agreement with Garwood, the
agency and then the courts agreed to allow LCRA to supply up to 1.5 million
acre-feet per year, providing for certain commitments to be "interruptible" for the
Rebecca S. Motal
February 9,2012
Page 3
purpose of protecting supplies made under "firm" commitments.
For each
interruptible commitment, like Garwood's 1987 Contract with LCRA, the supply
of stored water "may be interrupted or curtailed as necessary either on a pro rata
basis or in accordance with a system of priorities, as may be set forth in various
contracts and resolutions that define such commitments."
Paragraph 2B(7) of
LCRA's Certificate of Adjudication Nos. 14-5482 for Lake Travis and 14-5478
for Lake Buchannan.
Thus, as a result of the Adjudication, LCRA was adjudicated the necessary paper
water rights that allowed the total of all commitments of stored water to exceed
the combined firm yield, and that provided for the downstream irrigators
generally to have a second priority in order to protect supplies to municipal and
industrial users of stored water. That does not mean, however, that LCRA had the
right to make additional commitments of stored water to municipal and industrial
customers that had the effect of making the supply of stored water to the irrigators
more interruptible, less available, less firm, less secure, etc., unless LCRA also
developed additional water supplies to offset the impacts on the irrigators.
Making the additional firm sales without developing the offsetting additional
water supplies is taking, without compensation, something committed to one set
of customers and selling it to another. This is something LCRA may not do. It is
like selling the same acre-foot of water to two different customers.
For the proper resolution of this second issue, Garwood and LehrerlLewis believe
LCRA should revise the draft Plan to recite that LCRA will develop whatever
additional water supplies may be needed to at least offset adverse impacts on
interruptible supplies resulting from additional "firm" commitments of stored
water made since the Adjudication.
None of the costs of those additional
offsetting supplies should be borne by the interruptible users. Garwood and
Lehrer/Lewis suggest the costs should be borne by those to whom LCRA made
the additional firm commitments of stored water since the Adjudication.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Plan. Please let me or Ralph
Savino know if you or your staff would like to discuss any issue raised by these comments.
ola
Enclosures
cc:
Nancy Lehrer Boyd
Ralph Savino

Exhibit F.3 Written comments received during revision

Transcription

Similar documents

Texas Settlement Region cookbook available during the Fantasy of

Matagorda Bay Nature Park Natural Science Programs

Black Rock Park

Hit the New York road

Fitger`s Lake View Office

Summer 2007 Flood Report - LCRA Hydromet

Captain Geech

Red Hill Lakefront Retreat - CaliforniaOutdoorProperties.com

Just Listed

Presented by: