Construction of the dam was started on June 27, , and impoundment of water began on June 16, The general contractor was Tecon Corporation of Dallas. The crest of the spillway is feet above mean sea level, and the conservation storage capacity is , acre-feet with a surface area of 8, acres and a sixty-mile shoreline at feet above mean sea level.
Stored water is used for municipal, industrial, and irrigation purposes and for the development of hydroelectric power downstream. The drainage area above the dam is 1, square miles. 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.
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.
Studies like this take a number of years and involve an incredible amount of fieldwork to scientifically link flow rates and response in aquatic habitats. SARA and their contractors sampled some 12, fish under a variety of flow conditions, did habitat and substrate mapping, hydraulic data collection, water quality measurements, riparian zone analysis, and sediment transport studies. The draft flow recommendations and lots of useful data were available to inform the SB3 Science and Stakeholder Committees.
Unfortunately, a full-blown SB2 analysis has not been conducted for the Guadalupe, so less information was available. The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority seemed to be the most likely candidate for funding a complete SB2 study, but it declined to do so. The good news is that almost all the SB3 regional stakeholders agreed on goals for flow in the River and strategies to ensure they occur.
Amongst the committee of 25 persons, 28 votes were taken to approve recommendations on flow regimes and other matters, and 17 of these votes were unanimously in favor. In the other 11 votes, no more than 3 votes were cast against. In addition, the scientists and stakeholders generally agreed on things. In other basins where the SB3 process has occurred, there have been major disagreements between and among stakeholders and scientists.
In March of , the TCEQ released draft rules which they proposed to publish for public comment in the Texas Register prior to final adoption. Stakeholders were alarmed to find that TCEQ staff had eliminated many of their recommendations. These included minimum subsistence flows, a range of seasonal base flows, a tier of pulse flows that occur after rain events, and overbank flows that are important for riparian zone habitat and stream channel morphology.
The TCEQ staff proposal eliminated the set-aside, the overbank flows, and most tiers of the base and pulse flows. Changes were more dramatic on the Guadalupe River side of the basin, where the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority has several new off-channel reservoirs planned. At a meeting of TCEQ Commissioners on March 28 to approve the rules for publication, Stakeholders packed the room to urge the Commissioners to instruct that staff revise the proposed rules to more closely reflect the Stakeholder recommendations.
Before it was over, the Commissioners had adopted an amendment that left the door open for TCEQ staff to make revisions that would return many of the Stakeholder recommendations to the rules package. After the March 12 hearing, a public comment period followed, and thousands of comments were submitted that mostly support revisions that would more closely mirror the Stakeholder recommendations. During this period the TCEQ was invited to one of the final Stakeholder work sessions to make a presentation regarding the proposed rules.
Most Stakeholders felt that TCEQ had disregarded their recommendations without any justification, and they were hoping to hear some. They did not - they only heard a reiteration of the proposal. Stakeholders pointed out that TCEQ staff was present at all the Stakeholder meetings, and it could have at least signalled they were recommending things that had little chance of receiving TCEQ approval.
TCEQ pointed out the Legislature directed that it "consider" Stakeholder recommendations, not necessarily accept them. Most Stakeholders ended up feeling like they were sort of tricked into spending a lot of time and effort doing something that TCEQ knew all along it was simply going to trash. After the public hearing and the comment period, the TCEQ staff declined to make any significant changes to their initial proposal.
The prevailing opinion among most that are knowledgable about the workings of the water business around here is that TCEQ staff is highly intimidated by GBRA - it appeared that TCEQ simply acquiesced to pressure from that agency. When TCEQ Commissioners met to adopt the new rules on August 8, Commissioner Carlos Rubenstein proposed an amendment to return at least one of the protections to the Guadalupe River, a seasonal high pulse flow, which the great majority of Stakeholders and public comments supported.
That amendment was adopted, and the final rules became effective on August 30, download them here. In the end, the whole SB3 process left most Stakeholders dissatisfied with both the outcome and the process, questioning whether Texas really has any commitment to protect her rivers and bays.
Science Team recommendations. Senate Bill 2 studies for the Guadalupe. In January of , the first public meeting was held regarding the process of conducting in-depth Senate Bill 2 flow studies for the Lower Guadalupe, similar to those already completed for the San Antonio River.
The results of these studies could eventually be incorporated into the adaptive management process outlined in Senate Bill 3. At the public meeting in Seguin, agency staffers laid out the process for interested citizens and sought public input on how the studies should proceed. Before the work on Canyon Dam was even finished, new neighborhoods and amenities were popping up along the soon-to-be banks.
The cities of Sattler and Startzville became Canyon City which is still around today. Of much more importance is the unincorporated area known as Canyon Lake, which surrounds the reservoir created by Canyon Dam. This vibrant area has numerous retail stores and resort complexes that serve the demanding tourist population.
Canyon Lake also has a large number of retired persons who call it home. We are your resource for Hill Country travel, things to do, places to eat, places to stay, tourism, events, lodging, and we feature Texas Hill Country info of all manners. Our Texas Hill Country Facebook page is growing by over 1, fans per day!
0コメント