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)
View Poll Results: Good location for a new Austin lake?
Yes 8 34.78%
No 11 47.83%
indifferent 4 17.39%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-06-2015, 08:51 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,962,657 times
Reputation: 997

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sojourner77 View Post
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.
So you've completely given up on it being a reservoir, you're proposing throwing a bunch of people out of their homes purely for a recreational amenity?




Quote:
Originally Posted by sojourner77 View Post
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. Dams around central Texas were created to control flooding.

I have a meeting to run to, can't argue now.
Water has to go somewhere. This is simple physics. It's not that hard.

Today, if there's a bunch of rain, it goes into the currently empty 100 year floodplain, and fills that up.

If that's _already_ full, then it raises the level of the lake above the 100 year floodplain. The rest of the houses in the neighborhood get flooded (when they otherwise wouldn't have) and you get sued.

OR

If you let all that water go immediately downstream (immediately and fully open floodgates, which isn't the SOP for any of the other dams), then all that water starts flooding the property downstream. Again, when otherwise it wouldn't have (it would have been filling up the previous 100 year floodplain). Those property owners now sue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-06-2015, 08:52 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,962,657 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojourner77 View Post
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
"upstream of Wimberley"

Not in the middle of Wimberly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2015, 08:56 AM
 
Location: home
1,235 posts, read 1,522,584 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by unihills View Post
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?
Flooding occurs along Lake Austin, and that is constant level as well - created by Tom Miller.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2015, 10:27 AM
 
240 posts, read 270,288 times
Reputation: 236
It doesn't really matter. It's never going to happen and that's not what is being planned for Onion Creek park. It has been a pretty insulting thread as a resident though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2015, 11:26 AM
 
Location: home
1,235 posts, read 1,522,584 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT_ATX View Post
It doesn't really matter. It's never going to happen and that's not what is being planned for Onion Creek park. It has been a pretty insulting thread as a resident though.
A lake is insulting, but a park isn't? That doesn't make sense. A lake would add a lot more to property values than a floodplain ( or park that gets flooded and has to be evacuated when the weatherman says so)


I live right next to the flood plain shown by the proposed lake, and I'm a not offended.


why are you?

Last edited by sojourner77; 11-06-2015 at 11:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2015, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
15,241 posts, read 35,440,091 times
Reputation: 8572
I think most of this must have been discussed, but my understanding:

If a dam is built on Onion Creek, it would have to be to built as an empty retention pond, not a permanent lake. If it was a lake, then it does almost nothing for flood control. That area does not have enough topography to yield a respectable flood-capacity over and above a normal lake level. If it was 'full' or near full, it would yield only a small amount of capacity to hold water and then start flooding around the new lake. Depending on the rate that water could be discharged, this could potentially extend the flood plain into areas that are currently not in the flood plain. If the lake could discharge as fast as it filled, it isn't actually reducing the flood risk anywhere (only permanently flooding the old flood plain). For comparison, Onion Creek has reached or exceeded 120,000 cfs in the last couple of flood events. The full discharge capacity of lake Travis is around 133,000 cfs - via 24 gates.

Alternatively, if the area where to be undeveloped (say, as a park) and a dam built for flood events, then the area could be used as somewhat of a hedge against floods downstream at an increased risk of floods in currently non-flood plain areas around the 'retention' lake. How much risk would depend on discharge capacity, lake capacity, and flood even rainfall. The volume of such a lake would be critical to that math and I have no idea what it would be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2015, 11:56 AM
 
240 posts, read 270,288 times
Reputation: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojourner77 View Post
A lake is insulting, but a park isn't? That doesn't make sense. A lake would add a lot more to property values than a floodplain ( or park that gets flooded and has to be evacuated when the weatherman says so)


I live right next to the flood plain shown by the proposed lake, and I'm a not offended.


why are you?
Flippantly dismissing other people's opinions is what I found insulting. When I mentioned part of a school, Onion Creek park, William Cannon road and the soccer fields being submerged, you basically dismissed all those things as unimportant. Maybe, that was not your intent, but it didn't seem like you had much interest in listening to anyone that disagreed with you. If you live in this area, then I would definitely recommend getting out and enjoying what is here. Or reading about the future proposed improvements to the park:

https://data.austintexas.gov/downloa...pplication/pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2015, 12:06 PM
 
Location: home
1,235 posts, read 1,522,584 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by CT_ATX View Post
Flippantly dismissing other people's opinions is what I found insulting.
You made it sound like the idea of a lake is insulting, not my attitude. That's fair. I insult people all the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2015, 01:40 PM
 
Location: home
1,235 posts, read 1,522,584 times
Reputation: 1080
Also worth mentioning is that this flood plain has some of the richest soil in the area, and there would be millions of yards worth, with a retail value of $35-$50 per yard.

The resale could fund excavation (increasing the lake's capacity), and provide topsoil for the residents west of 35 who badly need it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2015, 02:00 PM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,962,657 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by sojourner77 View Post
Also worth mentioning is that this flood plain has some of the richest soil in the area, and there would be millions of yards worth, with a retail value of $35-$50 per yard.

The resale could fund excavation (increasing the lake's capacity), and provide topsoil for the residents west of 35 who badly need it.
Uh, better check your math again.

If topsoil in that area was that valuable, no one would have ever built a subdivision there in the first place, they just would have bought the land and scraped it for the soil.


Again, why are you so insistent on destroying this neighborhood, the majority of which is outside the floodplain and isn't being bought out?
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 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