Jump to content

texhorn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    693
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by texhorn

  1. Hayden]Bottom line, LBJ simply couldn't take the length.  No amount of open floodgates at Mansfield or Tom Miller would have changed what happened on Lake LBJ.  They could have opened every floodgate on Lake Travis and Lake Austin, 6 months ago, and had both lakes completely drained to 0%, and it would have no effect on what happened on Lake LBJ.
     


    Este



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. In theory they could have opened up Wertz and Starke earlier and dropped those lakes down well below constant level, and then allowed the flood waters to fill it up without flooding while continuing to pass water down through Mansfield and Tom Miller (earlier).  But I can't imagine that's even considered. What happens then if the flood isn't as bad? You're left with low lakes that you have to fill back up (which I guess you could do by letting water out of Buchanan and over the Inks spillway, but then you end up depleting Buchanan?). 
    Also, LCRA should take over Longhorn Dam. It makes no sense that the last dam in the line is controlled and maintained by the City instead of LCRA. Some dude just called into Jeff Ward's show and was making this point.


    They did lower the level as the Llano was flooding. The problem is the giant wall of water that came down the Llano. Remember that this was so overwhelming that the Colorado flowed backwards (upstream) during this time.

    Also they had more than 4 gates open a Wirtz for a while. They just dropped back down to 4 last night.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  3. No clue why Mansfield won't open a fifth gate. 24,000 cfs coming out, but the army corp of engineers manual states they can do up to 30,000 (roughly one more floodgate).
    4. Elevation 691-710. If the lake level is forecast to rise above elevation 691.0 (the top of the joint use pool), but not to exceed elevation 710.0, the rate of release, subject to the downstream control discharges specified in Table 7-1, shall be increased to 30,000 cfs and maintained until the lake level recedes below elevation 691.0.
    The downstream conditions are minimal right now as well. 

    Wondering the same here.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. 22 minutes ago, LonghornJones said:

    4 ft per hour? I'm having a hard time with that.

    The lake was also really low at the time, something like 30% full.  Inflows at a low lake level will fill the lake much faster as opposed to when the lake is mostly full already. I bet the inflows we were seeing yesterday are not drastically below the 1952 levels... 

    • Like 1
  5. They haven't updated the floodstatus page on LCRA since 9:15 or so, but definitely no mention of Mansfield or Tom Miller opening.  That's damn nuts!

    Says it on their twitter feed


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  6. LT at 665.14 at 10:23pm.
     
    That’s nuts. 12 or so feet higher than the last time we went out and the llano river is still reading full up river. LBJ will keep pouring into LT for a few more days. We could be above 681 to start the late spring/early summer.
     
     


    The LCRA laughs in your general direction.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
×
×
  • Create New...