Found this CNN article fascinating (Houston, Austin: transplants, 2015, home)

[hound 109]

From Trainwreck: and Fire Ants!

Yeah...but you don't have to worry about fire ants getting inside the house unless the Air Conditioning is running. Oh wait...

[Austin97]

and ebola and west nile

[Eastcoasting]

Alligators, african bees, fire ants and West Nile!

Oh my!

[Eastcoasting]

Originally Posted by hound 109

hee.

But what about the dreaded offspring.....the Chupacabrafornian. Picks up a bottle of "two buck chuck" at TJs prior to his mischievous blood sucking activities throughout South & Central Texas.

& what about Alligators? and African Bees?

Chupacabrafornian

Best T-Shirt of 2014!

[Idlewile]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Some very valid points, but some minor corrections:


Was full in 2010

I was curious about this so I googled and all the results I reviewed - from difference sources - say 2007.

Aside from water, which IS important, this article doesn't touch the tip of the iceberg for those unfamiliar with Austin and considering a move; unfortunately, there are a lot more negatives... even in addition to the media's no-longer-true 'Hey, move to Austin because the COL is super low coupled with 'liberal weird', ton o' jobs, great schools and a unique music scene' line.

Only two sentences about our (awful) traffic? It's like a glossy marketing one-sheet. I wish it were only as bad as described.

But if you're an allergist. Come.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Yeah, wondered about Caddo, but it is a beaver dam if not a human dam.

Caddo Lake was a natural lake but they dammed downstream to make Caddo Lake even larger, so technically it is not a natural lake anymore, I guess so it goes...

"Caddo is one of Texas' few non-oxbow natural lakes and is the 2nd largest in the South; however, it was artificially altered by the addition of a dam in the 1900s." source Caddo Lake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[rynetwo]

Originally Posted by Idlewile

I was curious about this so I googled and all the results I reviewed - from difference sources - say 2007.

Aside from water, which IS important, this article doesn't touch the tip of the iceberg for those unfamiliar with Austin and considering a move; unfortunately, there are a lot more negatives... even in addition to the media's no-longer-true 'Hey, move to Austin because the COL is super low coupled with 'liberal weird', ton o' jobs, great schools and a unique music scene' line.

Only two sentences about our (awful) traffic? It's like a glossy marketing one-sheet. I wish it were only as bad as described.

But if you're an allergist. Come.

Water Data For Texas

2009 or 2010

[Trainwreck20]

I was curious about this so I googled and all the results I reviewed - from difference sources - say 2007.

I guess it depends on what you mean by full. The LCRA calls the lake 'full pool' at 681 feet. Lake Travis was above this level at some point or another throughout March, April, and May 2010, although only April averaged above 681. Yes, in June 2007 the lake hit 689 feet, but the LCRA tries to empty the lake down to 681 as fast as it can, since that is considered above full and leaves little capacity for flood control.

For the calendar year 2010, the lake level was, on average, almost identical to 2007 - 672.31' in 2010 and 672.28' fin 2007.

So I am not sure how the 'full' is being defined.

Here is the monthly historical data:
http://www.lcra.org/water/river-and-...ke-levels.aspx

[cBach]

So the media built us up a while back and now it's time for them to tear us down. Don't you know the media love to build something up only to see it fail?

[Idlewile]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I guess it depends on what you mean by full. The LCRA calls the lake 'full pool' at 681 feet. Lake Travis was above this level at some point or another throughout March, April, and May 2010, although only April averaged above 681. Yes, in June 2007 the lake hit 689 feet, but the LCRA tries to empty the lake down to 681 as fast as it can, since that is considered above full and leaves little capacity for flood control.

For the calendar year 2010, the lake level was, on average, almost identical to 2007 - 672.31' in 2010 and 672.28' fin 2007.

So I am not sure how the 'full' is being defined.

Here is the monthly historical data:
Historical Lake Levels

Thanks for sharing that data. Yeah, I guess different entities interpret it differently. All I know it looks so low and has looked awfully sad since we moved here. And ever since we've owned a house here, we've only been allowed to water once a week. Which, while we all think is normal now, it sure is not. Even with no other data or info those two things coupled together seem pessimistic and not a good thing.