Home > City Beat > Archives > 2009 > October > 26 > Entry
LCRA to consider moratorium on new water sales
The Lower Colorado River Authority may soon impose a temporary moratorium on new water sales until drought conditions ease.
The goal is to protect water supplies already promised to cities and industrial users along the Colorado River, said General Manager Tom Mason today.
The LCRA board of directors will discuss the moratorium at a specially called meeting Nov. 10 in Austin, Mason said.
“We’re trying to not increase demand on the river and lakes,” LCRA spokesman Robert Cullick said.
The proposal would not affect cities or industrial users with existing water contracts, including Austin.
“If you have purchased water, that’s fine. If you want new water contracts, we will recommend to the board of directors that we temporarily put those on hold until the lakes significantly refill, ending the drought,” Cullick said.
Shoreline residents along the Highland Lakes who are seeking permits for existing water use — those with pipes already pulling out water — would not be affected by the proposal.
Despite recent rains, Central Texas remains in the third year of an intense drought that last summer dropped Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan — the region’s water-supply reservoirs — to less than 40 percent of capacity.
“Those lakes are still less than half full at the end of October — traditionally a rainy month,” Mason said. “We’re in a real hole.”
Permalink | Comments (21) | Post your comment Categories: Environment
Comments
Austinites love to be heard, and we're giving you a bullhorn. We just ask that you keep things civil. Leave out the personal attacks. Do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion. If you can't be nice, we reserve the right to remove your material and ban users who violate our Visitor's agreement. Click here to report comment abuse.
By 34 year old realist
October 26, 2009 12:58 PM | Link to this
In related news LCRA’s arm will be twisted by politicians who know which side their bread is buttered on. The intention is grrreat! The headline is great! The reality sux.
Sadly, what used to be pessimism has turned into realism…
By dumbfounded
October 26, 2009 1:10 PM | Link to this
why is this even an issue? seems really silly to me… this is the story line…
you over there with the yard, no more watering, you rice farmers… we may take this out on you too, and you, Mr Company with the checkbook… how may we help you with our double standards?
if it hurts when you hit your head, stop hitting your head!
By informed
October 26, 2009 1:21 PM | Link to this
Hopefully the LCRA is waking up to water preservation. They are going to have to buck the politicians of some counties and hold a tight line in their negotiations .The last two years with no rain should tell them that they have not done well in their water conservation of the highland lakes. The lakes were down to 40% cap. and now after approx. 20 ” of rain in the watershed in the last month they may be at 50% cap. The recharge amounts of rain needed to fill the lakes again is way beyond their comprehension. The political and good old boy syndrome which has been going on in Texas for years needs to end. The rice farmers do not need 3 x the amount of water than Austin does either some for which they resale for a profit.They waste a great amount of our precious water for nothing.
By dungeree jimmy
October 26, 2009 2:12 PM | Link to this
“The rice farmers do not need 3 x the amount of water than Austin does either some for which they resale for a profit.They waste a great amount of our precious water for nothing.” Austin doe not need two thirds of the people it has either.
By Ron
October 26, 2009 2:18 PM | Link to this
LCRA is committed to release several hundred thousand acre feet of water to the Garwood Irrigation Corp (so-called Rice Farmers). The Garwood Irrigation district now sells that water to for profit ****** since Rice Farming has all but ceased.
Now why is LCRA bound by that 1901 Contract since it is not going to agriculture but to for profit idenities with no connection what so ever to farming.
Austin is suffering at the hands of the greedy and needs to stop.
By bushwickbill
October 26, 2009 3:24 PM | Link to this
The corrupt, renegade, quasi-govermental, answerable-to-no-one organization we all know and love is actually considering doing the right thing?
Oops, my bad, the article read ‘TEMPORARY moritorium’. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
By TOM
October 26, 2009 3:45 PM | Link to this
LCRA WILL TELL YOU THAT A DRIP FROM A FAUCET WILL USE A LOT OF WATER,, YET IF YOU ARE A WATERFRONT POPERTY OWNER USE ALL THE WATER YOU WANT. LCRA DOES NOT KNOW HOW MANY ARE USING AND HOW MANY HAVE PERMITS…ANYWAY A PERMIT FOR $130 ANNUALLY FOR ALL THE WATER YOU CAN PUMP ISN’T A BAD DEAL AT ALL.
By TOM
October 26, 2009 3:45 PM | Link to this
LCRA WILL TELL YOU THAT A DRIP FROM A FAUCET WILL USE A LOT OF WATER,, YET IF YOU ARE A WATERFRONT PROPERTY OWNER USE ALL THE WATER YOU WANT. LCRA DOES NOT KNOW HOW MANY ARE USING AND HOW MANY HAVE PERMITS…ANYWAY A PERMIT FOR $130 ANNUALLY FOR ALL THE WATER YOU CAN PUMP ISN’T A BAD DEAL AT ALL.
By TOM
October 26, 2009 3:46 PM | Link to this
LCRA WILL TELL YOU THAT A DRIP FROM A FAUCET WILL USE A LOT OF WATER,, YET IF YOU ARE A WATERFRONT PROPERTY OWNER USE ALL THE WATER YOU WANT. LCRA DOES NOT KNOW HOW MANY ARE USING AND HOW MANY HAVE PERMITS…ANYWAY A PERMIT FOR $130 ANNUALLY FOR ALL THE WATER YOU CAN PUMP ISN’T A BAD DEAL AT ALL. ALL WATERFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS NEED TO OBTAIN A PERMIT!
By TOM
October 26, 2009 3:47 PM | Link to this
LCRA WILL TELL YOU THAT A DRIP FROM A FAUCET WILL USE A LOT OF WATER,, YET IF YOU ARE A WATERFRONT PROPERTY OWNER USE ALL THE WATER YOU WANT. LCRA DOES NOT KNOW HOW MANY ARE USING AND HOW MANY HAVE PERMITS…ANYWAY A PERMIT FOR $130 ANNUALLY FOR ALL THE WATER YOU CAN PUMP ISN’T A BAD DEAL AT ALL. ALL WATERFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS NEED TO OBTAIN A PERMIT!
By LSM
October 26, 2009 3:56 PM | Link to this
THANKS TOM !!
By Timinator
October 26, 2009 4:10 PM | Link to this
Money changing hands has a way of overcoming any obstacle in the way of developers.
By Dirty Joe
October 26, 2009 5:07 PM | Link to this
Shouldn’t this have been done decades ago?
By Sharon Seligman
October 26, 2009 5:17 PM | Link to this
It is time to provide incentives for those who would install water collecting systems for irrigation. New Developments should require have water collection systems in order to get entitlements.
By dc
October 26, 2009 6:33 PM | Link to this
Tom: Even though you posted your rant in capital letters-it still isn’t factual. I am a waterfront property owner WITH a contract and the amount of water that we can purchase is related to the size of the property abutting the watershed. LCRA calculates the amount that you get based on the size of the property recorded with the county tax office. So no cheating to get more water unless you run your pump illegally. If I was going to do that… Why get a contract in the first place?
I have a 3 year contract to pull water from one of the lakes and in a summer like we just had: It is just enough to keep the yard alive hopefully. The price can (and will) go up during those 3 years and I will have to follow the same water restrictions as everyone else does including getting no water (even though I paid for it in advance) if LCRA says so. The pump has to be off from November 1st until March 1st. even though my yard might need it during that time. The amount paid annually is not unusual considering that it is untreated water. It sounds like a good deal compared to city water, but keep in mind that a large cost of treated, city water is the fact that you are paying for water treatment costs after you get it. When it goes down the drain, it goes back to the water treatment plant and that is figured in. The water I use is for irrigation only and not retreated. In fact, some of the water I paid for comes back into the lake and you get to use it downstream.
By Faith
October 26, 2009 6:40 PM | Link to this
SERIOUSLY?!?! They’ve been restricting water usage to individuals for how many months???? Lake Travis is down how many feet?!?! And they are JUST NOW “THINKING” about stopping new water sales?!?!? Is it just me, or have the people running this state (and state agencies)become purely corrupt and inept???? Good Lord people, how do you look at yourself in the mirror every morning How do you sleep? Who raised you?
By dfg
October 26, 2009 7:20 PM | Link to this
I think it is a good idea. Now is a great time to get started.
By Gran
October 26, 2009 7:34 PM | Link to this
Restricting new water sales is a no brainer.
By Gran
October 26, 2009 7:35 PM | Link to this
Restricting new water sales is a no brainer.
By Hurst
October 26, 2009 8:30 PM | Link to this
I’m curious, Gran, dfg, and Faith, what’s the target reservoir capacity after the worst drought in over 50 years? Half full? 3/4 full? Almost 40% seems pretty good to me. Is it me or are they going to implement this just as the drought ends? Have any of you lived here long enough to realize that the 2-3 year boom-n-bust hydrologic cycle is how it works around here? I guess it won’t be good enough until the cost of living in Austin rises enough so that average, middle-class americans can’t live here anymore… but then what about low-income housing?
By two
October 26, 2009 9:03 PM | Link to this
I live in the boonies north of Georgetown….folks it ain’t gonna happen. “temp” or not Money talks. I tried unsuccessfully to find someone to halt sales from the Jonah Water Corp. here as they don’t have enough water (or conscience) to provide existing customers. Every year we get notices of second and third degrees of rationing. Yet they continue to sell to anyone who wants a meter. I was told there is NO authority over the special utility districts. Money talks bs walks……