Travis empty by 2016? (San Antonio, Austin, Spring: leases, buying, costs)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by llkltk

They needed it on all year to make the grass nice for the festival.

So you've never actually been to ACL huh?

[Trainwreck20]

I guess I should stop bathing and brushing my teeth if you are freaking out about the water. At least my car would be clean!

Is this a SNL skit line or something? I am not sure what you are comprehending, or not, or just trolling?

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

As you are probably aware, people use these charts to "prove" whatever they want. So if you pick 1952 - 2012, you have an upward trend.

It's only a downward trend if you look at 2006 - 2012.

If you did a least squares projection of your blue line data it would probably be pretty flat.

My earlier point is that current conditions have no bearing on future lake levels other than our higher demand which I have no data for.

Current conditions do have a bearing on future lake levels because the lake is 33% full. If the lake were 50% full a given amount of rain (acre feet of water) is likely to cause a greater rise in the lake level.

As for charts and manipulation - I could have picked any number of ways to present it other than the raw data as you point out. I picked a 5 year moving average because it removes year to year spikes but doesn't eliminate longer periods of high or low like a 60 year trend as you suggested.

[EzPeterson]

Good news is that this next wave of storms *looks* like it should hit the right spots, with some already saturated soil, we could see some good runoff!

[cdelite]

Originally Posted by scm53

More imposition of your choices on others. Same song, eight hundredth verse.

scm53, you imply that the current rate structure for water is NOT the imposition of someone's choice on others. But it is! And that's a problem. Our price of water is essentially a political decision handed down from above, not a price discovered by a competing market of buyers and sellers.

Prices in a competing market tend to be very fluid (sorry for the pun), rising in times of short supply (thus encouraging conservation), and falling in times of glut. Unfortunately we don't have that nice automatic mechanism in place when it comes to water.

If the water authorities don't at least attempt a facsimile of market prices, we end up with water usage restrictions (which we already face) followed by an even more draconian measure, rationing, if supplies continue to dwindle.

So yeah, I don't like that the price is political decision anymore than you do, but that's what we're stuck with due to the nature of water. How we ensure the decision-makers set a good price is a whole 'nother discussion, but doesn't 'steady as she goes' seem a bit too pollyanna-ish?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by cdelite

scm53, you imply that the current rate structure for water is NOT the imposition of someone's choice on others. But it is! And that's a problem. Our price of water is essentially a political decision handed down from above, not a price discovered by a competing market of buyers and sellers

Don't know where you got that idea. Austin's water rates are completely politics.

1. COA does NOT have responsibility for the management of water supplies in the Colorado River basin. Yet they have adopted the MOST aggressive rate structure. Yes, we are the largest consumer, but if the agency that has that responsibility hasn't hit the panic button, why has COA? Because of politics. Because of the current sliver of the community that controls City Hall. Which leads to,

2. The rate structure establishes one lifestyle as the ideal, and any other to be punished. We have the ridiculous situation that a single person, living alone in an apartment, without a washer, is "given" the same low rate allocation of water as a family of five, with a yard. Crazy. And myopic. And emotionally satisfying to that controlling sliver that enjoys punishing the philistines that have a lifestyle they don't approve of, and enjoy making that point at every turn.

We draw from the same supply as tens of water suppliers up and down the river. Yet we are the only ones with anything approaching the rate structure we have. Just for example, WCID #17 (drawing from Lake Travis) just approved new rates - 0-10K gallons, $1.78. 10-15,000, $2.56. COA rate for that same higher tier? $12.55. When you answer why, you'll see where the problem is.

[Trainwreck20]

Hey, weren't you just arguing that the COA should gouge users for all they can get (ACL)? Seems like the COA is coming around to your point of view .

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Hey, weren't you just arguing that the COA should gouge users for all they can get (ACL)? Seems like the COA is coming around to your point of view .

Cute. I sincerely hope you can tell the difference between a negotiated price for the use of a city facility that either party can walk away from, and the City's water monopoly. If you are serious, God help you.

[Trainwreck20]

You can drill a well whenever you want, so not truly a monopoly, yes? You can drill a well and disconnect from the city and not have to worry about the rates...

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

You can drill a well whenever you want, so not truly a monopoly, yes? You can drill a well and disconnect from the city and not have to worry about the rates...

Nope. Nice try. It is a monopoly because the city will not allow a competitor - the availability of an alternative has nothing to do with it. Like saying that the city doesn't have a electricity monopoly because you can have oil lamps.

mo·nop·o·ly
məˈnäpəlē/
noun
1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.