How long is canyon lake dam

Another 15, acre-feet per year could be available from Canyon Lake, along with 20, acre-feet per year from the Gulf Coast Aquifer and some additional variable volume from unappropriated streamflows, for an overall total of 94, acre-feet per year.

The Saltwater Barrier is an inflatable dam constructed in the early 's just downstream of the confluence of the San Antonio and Guadalupe rivers, about 3. The dam serves to prevent the up-river intrusion of saltwater and creates a reservoir pool from which water could be pumped. The Planning Group's recommendations include a river intake and pump station, an off-channel dam and reservoir, a reservoir intake and pump station, a raw water pipeline to a treatment plant, a water treatment plant, and distribution systems to municipal users or the recharge zone.

The main environmental issues are ensuring continued adequate freshwater flows to the estuary below the project and potential mitigation for the 1, acres that would be inundated by the off-channel reservoir. The Group also studied four additional water supply projects dealing with Canyon Lake and the Guadalupe River that did not make the final list of recommendations. One of these would have been similar to the Saltwater Barrier option, involving diversion of unappropriated streamflows and uncommitted water from Canyon Lake, but the diversion point would be at Gonzales instead of the lower Texas coast.

The other three options involved using Guadalupe River water for additional Aquifer recharge. In one option, two potential diversion points below Comal Springs were studied where water could be diverted and then released to streams in the Recharge Zone where it would make its way back into the Aquifer. Another option involved diverting Guadalupe River water in the reach between Comfort and Center Point and pumping it to the watershed divide where it would flow to Medina Lake, and then it would be pumped to the Edwards recharge zone in northeastern Medina and northern Bexar counties.

In March dozens of elected officials and Canyon Lake residents turned out for a public hearing on the GBRA's proposal to divert an additional 40, acre-feet per year from the Lake. Officials from many cities from Boerne to Kyle urged the State to support the plan, while many Canyon Lake residents expressed fears the Lake would be pumped dry and there would be less flow in the Guadalupe River below the dam. Opponents also indicated they didn't want San Antonio to get any water.

The plan called for water rights sold to users in Bexar county to eventually be returned to Comal, Guadalupe and Kendall counties when they are needed, but some expressed a belief that once San Antonio got the water, it would be difficult to get it back. On April 23, , the New Braunfels City Council voted to not contest the state permit for the construction of the pipeline for the Western Comal Project. People that had been working for and against the project for a long time considered this to be the "moment of truth", when the TNRCC would decide.

As it turned out, no decision was made that day. Representatives from Trout Unlimited, a conservation group that has a year history of assisting the Parks and Wildlife Department in managing the fishery below the dam, asked for a contested case hearing. The fishing group expressed fears that during years when the flow from the dam is cut back, the water could get too warm for the non-native fish it stocks there and kill them.

Instead of either issuing the permit or acting on the request for a contested hearing, the TNRCC gave the parties until June 20 to try to work out a compromise. However, negotiations continued and on July 17, a deal was reached that allowed GBRA to move forward. Additional releases could be up to acre feet a year, which could serve almost 2, families.

Release of that volume of water would reduce the Lake level by only 1. Officials in Comal county were angered by the deal and threatened to counter with lawsuits and formal objections to the TNRCC. Comal county judge Danny Scheel said "They are putting the life of a fish that is not even native to that river above the health, welfare and well-being of people in a seven county area. SAWS President Eugene Habiger said a new treatment plant would ensure customers wouldn't know the difference between Edwards water and Guadalupe water, and that SAWS would distribute the water fairly and would not focus on certain parts of the city getting only certain types of water.

In March , the GBRA attempted to quell fears of Canyon Lake residents about new water sales by adopting a resolution saying it would not sell any more water from the Lake without a review and input from local county judges.

By March , GBRA had 76, acre-feet under contract, and rumors were that GBRA planned to immediately sell their remaining 14, acre-feet as soon as their permit was approved. Friends of Canyon Lake had hoped to air testimony on whether an objective environmental and economic impact study had been performed as part of the permitting process.

The group was concerned that selling more water from Canyon Lake would have a drastic effect on Lake levels. Friends of Canyon Lake appealed the ruling, but it was upheld by the 3rd Court of Appeals in November In January of , plans were firmed up to include 20, acre-feet per year from the Gulf Coast Aquifer in the project that involved diversions from the Guadalupe River near the Salt Water Barrier.

In February of a study was released that concluded GBRA's use of an additional 40, acre-feet of water from the Lake would enhance the recreational economy and increase the value of lakefront properties.

Many Canyon Lake residents feared the opposite. BBC Research and Consulting concluded that overall, there would be more business income, more jobs, more tax revenues, and higher Lake levels with the GBRA permit amendment than without it. After a briefing on the report by the consultant, many Canyon Lake supporters were still mystified about how using more water from the Lake could result in higher Lake levels.

The study included an assumption that future Lake levels would be lower because of increased use of existing rights and lower inflows, so it is essentially an analysis of what the impact of the permit amendment would be on the Lake as it is projected to exist in the future. In July of , the GBRA completed a study that suggested development would threaten the quality of water in Canyon Lake unless Comal county implements rules to reduce the amount of pollutants reaching the Lake.

The study recommended a water quality protection zone around the Lake that would require low impact development. It suggested that new rules be implemented limiting runoff and impervious cover. One controversial recommendation was for three new regional zero-discharge sewage treatment facilities, where recycled water would be used for irrigation instead of discharged to watercourses that enter the Lake.

Some environmentalists feared that establishing regional treatment plants would encourage more high-density development, since minimum lot sizes would not be required. On the other hand, some suggested that requiring large lots might turn the area into a place for elites only and would likely be struck down by legal challenges. In September of , a study by LBG-Guyton Associates suggested that using the Evangeline Aquifer to drought-proof the plan to divert Guadalupe water from a location near the Saltwater Barrier would have minimal effect.

The idea is that if drought interferes with the plan to divert from the Guadalupe, groundwater withdrawals would occur instead. The study suggested that in a worst-case scenario, Aquifer levels would drop almost 80 feet but would recover quickly with rainfall and reduced pumping in wet years. Ranchers in the area said the study was miscalculated and misleading, and that it failed to consider the cumulative impacts of other groundwater projects.

Engineers for Guyton said the groundwater availability model on which the study was based was in draft form and that other, as yet unspecified projects, could cause Aquifer levels to drop further than projected. This time, the group sued the US Army Corps of Engineers in federal court, alleging the Corps should have performed a full environmental impact statement before letting the GBRA build its new pumping station and pipeline.

Because of lingering acrimony over the Canyon Lake deal in the s and GBRA's intervention in the lawsuit that eventually limited San Antonio's pumping from the Edwards, their relationship has never been exactly cozy. Bill West cited three bones of contention that he said "are clearly contrary to the spirit" of the agreement and "undermine the partnership and trust that GBRA and SAWS have worked so hard to develop. In the mid 's, SAWS established a "shotgun" approach to water planning and began evaluating many different alternatives with the realization that some of them might not prove to be feasible or cost effective, and not all of them would be needed.

The task force recommended that San Antonio drop its participation in the project. By October , the GBRA had announced that it would seek new partners, reconfigure the project to drop the groundwater component, and develop the remainder of the project to serve the river authority's statutory county district.

The agreement was expected to lead to agreements to supply communities along I north and east of San Antonio. Many cities have reserved much more than they currently use to ensure a supply for future growth. In October of the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority announced the filing of permit applications for a new "Mid-Basin" water project that would provide up to 30, acre-feet of water per year to Caldwell and Hays counties.

The plans include drawing water from the Guadalupe River near Gonzales, along with a Carrizo Aquifer wellfield and an off-channel storage reservoir on a tributary of the Guadalupe River. The permit application requested that during wet years, GBRA be allowed to divert all 30, acre-feet from the Guadalupe.

When TCEQ issued a draft permit for the Mid-Basin project in July of , opposition began to mount from environmental groups and other regional water providers. Environmental concerns included the effects on the bay and estuary system and the endangered Whooping Cranes that make their winter home in San Antonio Bay. The San Antonio Water System joined the protest, saying it was not clear what impacts the permit might have on its rights to pump groundwater and also on its recycled water effluents, which provide base flow in the San Antonio River during dry times.

The San Antonio and Guadalupe are actually one river system - they confluence just above the coast before reaching the bay. In March of , the TCEQ seemed to violate its own rules when it declined to give seafood wholesalers a say in permitting for the project. They believed their business would be affected because it would throw off the delicate freshwater and saltwater mix in San Antonio Bay, harming the oysters, shrimp, and flounder which they market.

TCEQ rules say that economic interest is a factor in whether or not the agency should consider a party affected by an application, thus triggering a civil trial-like procedure known as a contested case hearing. In , with the groundwater component of the project already well underway, TCEQ approved the issuance of a new 75, acre-foot per year surface water permit. When complete, the project will conjunctively use groundwater, surface water, off-channel storage, and aquifer storage and recovery to manage the entire supply.

Such an application was unpredecented in Texas, and the filing stirred an emotional debate regarding the State's past success and future role in protecting environmental resources. Approval of such an application would have marked a profound change in the way Texas manages and protects natural resources. Currently, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TCEQ is the agency charged with protecting the State's natural resources and managing them for sustainable economic development. TCEQ rules consider instream uses to be a recognized 'beneficial use' of surface waters, but in the past the term has generally meant water left in the stream for recreation, navigation, and protection of endangered species.

Approval of an application such as the one SMRF filed would have far-reaching implications, because it would transfer publicly held resources to private hands without the understanding the resources are to be used for economic development.

They would be used only for environmental protection. Issuance of such a permit for the Guadalupe would essentially mean that no more Guadalupe River water would be available for economic development. Approval of such a permit would also call into question the TCEQ's role as the State's lead environmental agency, since a large portion of the water resources that TCEQ is charged with protecting would no longer be under their control.

The statewide goal for Texas rivers is "A resilient, functioning ecosystem characterized by intact, natural processes and a balanced, integrated, and adaptive community of organisms comparable to that of the natural habitat of a region. David Dewhurst asked the Commission to defer action on the permit until the Texas Legislature could address the issue. He said the law was not clear on whether the TCEQ could issue a permit for the sole purpose of preserving instream flows, and he would ask the Legislature to consider the TCEQ's powers and duties "before a new and far-reaching precedent is set.

SMRF executive director Diane Wassenich said that using the water to maintain the river and estuary would clearly be a beneficial use, which is the guideline the TCEQ uses in assigning water rights. West said he agreed that adequate flows should be ensured, but it should be done by asking the TCEQ to develop rules for environmental permits, not through a permit application such as filed by SMRF.

The action dealt a stunning blow to SMRF conservationists and other groups who had subsequently filed similar applications for unallocated waters in other Texas river basins. TCEQ Commission Chairman Robert Huston said his research clearly showed his agency has the responsibility to provide for downstream environmental flows. He said "I do not find even a hint in the Water Code that the commission was granted the express authority to grant a stand-alone permit for environmental flows.

In December of , Lt. David Dewhurst announced several appointments to a legislative committee charged with examining the issue of whether future legislatures should authorize issuance of environmental flow permits such as that sought by the SMRF. One of the appointments was of Sen. Ken Armbrister, chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, who authored legislation in that created the study commission. The Commission's final report, issued in October of , offered eight observations regarding flows reserved for environmental purposes.

First of all, because of Texas' diversity, a "one size fits all" approach is not correct. Also, the Commission observed that studies would need to focus in detail on the specific relationship between flows and sound ecological environments, and that participation by stakeholders is of paramount importance. It found shortcomings in the State's methods for developing instream flow recommendations, and shortcomings in methods used for determination of freshwater volumes required by the bays and estuaries.

It recognized that both regulatory and market strategies would be required, and it stressed that management schemes would need to be adaptive to respond to new scientific knowledge. Finally, the Commission observed that completion of the Texas Instream Flow Studies program would be essential. The lower Guadalupe below Canyon Dam , was one of the rivers on the Priority List, and a study to determine instream flow requirements was originally scheduled to be completed by In late , the due date for the Priority studies was moved to , mainly because of funding limitations.

In April , a non-profit group that monitors the nation's waterways, American Rivers , ranked the Guadalupe River as the 10th most endangered in the nation. The group said the main threat to the Guadalupe was the State's new water plan, which it says does not place enough importance on conservation and fails to ensure sufficient flow for fish and wildlife, especially in the estuaries along the coast.

It also said that GBRA's plans to expand diversions from the Guadalupe posed an immediate threat to the River and its estuaries. It is just the complete opposite of what they claim. The Guadalupe-Blanco River Trust The Guadalupe-Blanco River Trust is a nonprofit land trust organization that was developed to conserve land in the Guadalupe River Watershed for its natural, recreational, scenic, historic and productive value.

It was founded in by the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, a conservation and reclamation district created in by the Texas Legislature. The voluntary board of directors consists of citizens who share a love of the Guadalupe River - one of the most pristine rivers in Texas. Ensuring Flows for the Future.

In the Texas legislature had a great idea: figure out how much water should be in the River to support a sound ecological environment. In the Texas legislature had another great idea: figure out how much water should be in the River to support a sound ecological environment.

Although these two legislative endeavours have an identical goal, there are some key differences in their approaches, strategies, and scopes. It also provided zero funding for the extensive scientific analysis that would be necessary. The second program is known as the Environmental Flows, or E-Flows program, and it was established under Senate Bill 3 in , so it is also know as the SB3 program.

Under this program, regional stakeholders are the primary drivers, not the state agencies. The other main difference is the SB3 program includes freshwater inflows to the bays and estuaries, not just instream flows. The scientists are charged with determining the flows necessary to support a sound ecological environment in both the rivers an bays using the best available science, thereby eliminating having to wait indefinitely for funding and extensive analysis under the SB2 Instream Flows program.

They are instructed to make flow recommendations by considering the environment only, not other needs. Both sets of recommendations are then submitted to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TCEQ , which engages in a rulemaking process, considers input from any interested parties, and promulgates new rules regarding environmental flows that are to applied to any new surface water rights applications.

The entire E-Flows process is intended to be iterative and subject to periodic review, so that if new science becomes available under the SB2 Instream Flows program, it can be incorporated into flow recommendations and rules.

The Expert Science Team was appointed in the spring of and conducted an intense one-year evaluation, mostly of existing data, but which did also include much new science. On September 1, , The SB2 Stakeholder Committee submitted their own report, which included some adjustments to the Science Team recommendations to make allowances for planned water projects and other concerns the stakeholders had get the report here.

The recommended strategies to maintain adequate flows included voluntary set-asides, dedication of wastewater flows, and dry-year options. The Stakeholder Committee was also directed by the Legislature to keep working after their report was submitted and develop a Work Plan for the future, a prioritized list of knowledge gaps and additional studies they felt were needed to improve and refine flow recommendations.

The major flood event of record was in when the lake overflowed the spillway for the first time in the history of Canyon Lake. The highest recorded elevation was It is estimated that about two times the lakes volume in water went over the spillway in a very short time. There was still flooding down stream, but because the dam exists, the flooding was not worse. Without the dam, every city between Canyon Lake and the Guld of Mexico would have had severe flooding damage.

At conservation pool level Canyon Lake has a capacity of , acre-feet. It has a surface area of 8, acres and 80 miles of shoreline. At flood control pool level of ft-msl, the lake has an additional capacity of , acre-feet making total storage , acre-feet.

The Authority contributed to the construction costs and currently pays the U. Government annually for the portion of operation and maintenance costs attributed to the conservation pool water. The water is used to operate several small hydroelectric plants downstream from New Braunfels.

It is also used by the GBRA for municipal water supply, irrigation, and industrial uses. To help prevent you from becoming the next historical statistic, Please wear your life jacket when having fun at Canyon Lake.

Regulatory Branch. Lakes and Recreation Information Reservoir Control. Peer Review Plans. Canyon Reservoir was completed in and has two main purposes: 1 It provides flood control to an area that is the sixth most flood-prone region in the nation; 2 It provides a dependable supply of stored water for municipal, industrial and agricultural uses throughout the Guadalupe River Basin — especially during droughts and periods of low river flows.

The Reservoir is created by an earthfill embankment dam located at mile The dam is feet high and 6, feet long. Canyon Reservoir was built and financed through a partnership between the U. The Dam and Reservoir are owned by the Federal Government — which also owns the rights to the flood control portion of the reservoir from elevation up to feet mean sea level. GBRA owns the right to the conservation storage portion of the Reservoir the water stored at elevation feet msl or below.

Army Corps of Engineers. This portion of the reservoir is usually kept empty to contain floodwater from heavy rainfall events upstream of the Reservoir. Releases of floodwater are made by the Corps as soon as possible, but at rates that do not contribute to downstream flooding.

The Corps must make sure that the Canyon release rate, when combined with local river conditions, does not exceed 12, cfs at these locations. For many, this is their sole water source while others contract with GBRA to ensure a firm backup supply during drought.

Releases from the conservation pool are based upon natural inflows, licensed flows for the project, senior water rights, contract releases from the conservation pool for cities, industries and other downstream users, and bay and estuary flow requirements. The reservoir, at conservation pool elevation of feet msl, covers approximately 8, surface acres and impounds about , acre-feet of water.

An acre-foot of water is about , gallons. The mean average flow of the Guadalupe River at Spring Branch, upstream of the Reservoir, is about cubic feet per second cfs. The median flow of the Guadalupe River at Spring Branch is about cfs.