Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-14-2013, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,714 posts, read 31,176,487 times
Reputation: 9270

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by llkltk View Post
Do you not see how much rain we got today. Give me a break. I'm sick of the water restrictions. I want to wash my car. I'm sick of this town and the whining over water. Ooh, no bags, you can't use water. Let the nanny state continue. EGADS!
The rain this past weekend was nice. But it fell mostly in areas that do not fill the lakes. Lake Travis rose a little over one foot this weekend. We need the rain to fall north west of Austin - to cause inflows on the Llano, San Saba, Pedernales rivers. Water would flow in to Buchanan and Travis.

Conserving water is not a nanny state issue. Water is a life sustaining substance whereas nanny governance tries to protect you from yourself. I don't care how many sodas or Happy Meals you consume. I don't want the government exerting its control over me on those items. But I care very much about the water resources in Central Texas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2013, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
15,269 posts, read 35,637,527 times
Reputation: 8617
Quote:
Lake Travis rose a little over one foot this weekend.
It is up from 620.36' at 11:30 pm on 10/12 to 622.42' currently, so about two feet.

Not disagreeing with you about conserving water, btw, just pointing out it was a little more than that in the lake .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2013, 08:17 AM
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
5,184 posts, read 7,277,620 times
Reputation: 2575
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
Conserving water is not a nanny state issue. Water is a life sustaining substance whereas nanny governance tries to protect you from yourself. I don't care how many sodas or Happy Meals you consume. I don't want the government exerting its control over me on those items. But I care very much about the water resources in Central Texas.
I completely agree. But the management of surface water resources in the Colorado River basin is LCRA's responsibility, not the City of Austin's. Until LCRA restricts ALL the users drawing from that resource, then it is tough to understand why the COA, acting alone, would impose punitive pricing. We don't all live the same - some have bigger families, some have more trees. To say X is the "allowable" household usage is cultural imperialism.

Besides - COA per household usage is down. The real problem is explosive growth. Why not a moratorium on new taps?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2013, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
15,269 posts, read 35,637,527 times
Reputation: 8617
Quote:
Why not a moratorium on new taps?
Because it would totally crater the local economy?

There is already tiered pricing, and the city of Austin already manages those tiers/prices. Varying those is not a huge change in how things are already done. There is no 'allowable' usage being talked about, just cheap usage and/or more expensive usage. Hey, instead of limiting taps, why not limit kids on those bigger families.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2013, 08:26 AM
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
5,184 posts, read 7,277,620 times
Reputation: 2575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainwreck20 View Post
Because it would totally crater the local economy?
I'd be interested in the logic behind that. Or is it just pure supposition?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2013, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
15,269 posts, read 35,637,527 times
Reputation: 8617
Quote:
Or is it just pure supposition?
Supposition, but not pure, for sure .

What is it, 50 new households a day moving into the area - no new taps means no no living units - where do they go? They can't, so jobs go elsewhere......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2013, 08:55 AM
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
5,184 posts, read 7,277,620 times
Reputation: 2575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainwreck20 View Post
Supposition, but not pure, for sure .

What is it, 50 new households a day moving into the area - no new taps means no no living units - where do they go? They can't, so jobs go elsewhere......
Not every community in the Austin area draws their water from LCRA surface water resources. Georgetown, Hutto, Kyle/Buda, Bastrop - can all handle new taps without draining Lake Travis.

So no, jobs don't necessarily go elsewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2013, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,740,494 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam355 View Post
Officials predict Lake Travis will run dry by 2016

Sooner than I would have thought. Yet people still water their lawns? Hopefully whatever plan the governor has is a good one. Austin is going to be a lot less attractive without the water.
Those who have been here for a long time know this is a common cycle. Lake Travis is only 6 feet lower today than it was two years ago on the same date. And it went from 50 feet below full in October 2009 to 100% full five months later.

Predicting our lake levels is about as useless as predicting climate change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2013, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
15,269 posts, read 35,637,527 times
Reputation: 8617
Quote:
Not every community in the Austin area draws their water from LCRA surface water resources. Georgetown, Hutto, Kyle/Buda, Bastrop - can all handle new taps without draining Lake Travis.

So no, jobs don't necessarily go elsewhere.
So how many new taps are being approved in Austin currently? Is it so few as to make little difference? It doesn't make sense unless there is some data behind it....

Interesting 2011-2012 comparison:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...53899372,d.b2I

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...53899372,d.eW0

Last edited by Trainwreck20; 10-14-2013 at 09:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2013, 09:07 AM
 
2,185 posts, read 6,434,427 times
Reputation: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam355 View Post
Wow man you are impressive. That rain we got today has added a foot and a half to only one of the two lakes which is about 50 feet down and is dropping DAILY. Did nothing for the other. Were screwed with people like you living here.
Oh, well I should stop watering so you can take a boat on the lake. I'd rather water my lawn and wash my car. Who cares about water for recreational purposes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:46 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top