Idea for Austin's newest lake - good or bad? (Wimberley: how much, homes)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by CT_ATX

I think you fail to understand what makes up a neighborhood. The parks, houses, schools and roads are all part of that. So yeah, you'd be destroying all of that to make a giant crater that will occasionally be filled with water. It sounds like an enormous boondoggle that would scar the natural beauty of my neighborhood. I'll pass, but Auditorium Shores and other parts of downtown get flooded all time too, so we can probably bulldoze those for a lake. I'm sure everybody will be happy about that.

The reason Auditoruim Shores is there, with minimal structures built in the area, is because it is in the flood plain an we know it will flood occasionally. This is the best use for areas like this, parks and green space. As a neighborhood, the Onion Creek area is already being destroyed, as the flood plane requirements make doing so a necessity. Turning the flood prone areas into green spaces, parks and even a lake is the highest and best use for the land, as it is only a matter of time before it floods again.

[CT_ATX]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

The reason Auditoruim Shores is there, with minimal structures built in the area, is because it is in the flood plain an we know it will flood occasionally. This is the best use for areas like this, parks and green space. As a neighborhood, the Onion Creek area is already being destroyed, as the flood plane requirements make doing so a necessity. Turning the flood prone areas into green spaces, parks and even a lake is the highest and best use for the land, as it is only a matter of time before it floods again.

It already is green spaces, parks and water retention areas. That's my point and that is what I wouldn't want destroyed by an enormous lake, so it isn't any different than any other park or street that is prone to floods. Austin has a lot of them. A majority of the year Onion Creek is a great park with miles of nature trails and the creek is ankle deep at crossings.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

^^^ an old cry, really. Austin lacks a lot of 'nice' things, and I'm starting to understand why. The time is coming where people will start demanding better. We're almost there. Places like Hamilton Pool for example, were nice when Austin was 1/2 size, but now there is a string of cars waiting to get in, and traffic jams. It's time to provide more amenities to the people who live here NOW, not those who lived here in 1980.

balcones canyonland preserve is around 30,000 acres of park that arent really open to the public.

Opening those and then having a bond to fund more acquisitions would be a great way to go.

[sojourner77]

When flooding out the 100-year plain (currently being bought out) by adding a dam, the lake would be about 3.5 miles long x 1 mile wide. full disclosure - all the houses show where the lake would be are already either bought out, or awaiting buy-out offers from the City of Austin. For Land-owners within the 100 year plain, it would be next to impossible to develop their land (building houses on stilts, or raising livestock that will eventually be washed away.)

[sojourner77]

There are also springs upstream along Slaughter creek and Onion Creek that would give a constant inflow to this lake.

Hill Country Springs located at 35/Slaughter Creek Overpass bottles and filters water on site from two springs on the property. Onion Creek has inflows, even during drought. You can see this at McKinney Falls State Park with their two waterfalls that are constantly flowing. The lake would be biologically viable (bass fishing, recreation, constant level during normal times, etc.)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

When flooding out the 100-year plain (currently being bought out) by adding a dam, the lake would be about 3.5 miles long x 1 mile wide.

And as already shown in the other thread, hold almost no water.

Originally Posted by sojourner77

full disclosure - all the houses show where the lake would be are already either bought out, or awaiting buy-out offers from the City of Austin. For Land-owners within the 100 year plain, it would be next to impossible to develop their land (building houses on stilts, or raising livestock that will eventually be washed away.)

Again, if you put a lake up to the 100 year flood plain, then the flood plain moves up, and now a bunch of houses not currently being bought out are now in the flood plain.

So then what's your plan? Spend _another_ couple hundred million $ on buyouts? And if someone says no, try to eminent domain them?

[Eastcoasting]

I like the idea and if we are going to be doing some major reworking of the area can we please drop a new courthouse along the new lake.

Please.

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by Novacek

And as already shown in the other thread, hold almost no water.

So what, it would be fed by inflows from spring/runoff and would be usable for recreation. 40 feet at it's deepest of deep enough for bass fishing or watersports.

Originally Posted by Novacek

Again, if you put a lake up to the 100 year flood plain, then the flood plain moves up, and now a bunch of houses not currently being bought out are now in the flood plain.

Is that a fact? Are you a civil engineer? Please provide the evidence to back up your statement, as I am not going to dig it up for you.

The dam would have flood gates - they could release prior to and during rain events. The Dams around central Texas were originally created to control flooding.

[sojourner77]

I'm not the only one - the creation of additional dams is being discuss elsewhere that suffered from the recent flooding:

As the Blanco recedes, officials wonder aloud about a dam | Insurance News Net

[unihills]

I'm thinking flood control works when containment is upstream of where the flooding occurs, not by building a lake where the actual flooding exists?