FACTS AND CONCERNS ABOUT CANYON LAKE

FACTS AND CONCERNS ABOUT CANYON LAKE

Canyon Lake, at a normal Conservation Pool level of 909' above mean sea level, is about 8,240 acres in surface area, has an 85-mile shoreline, and holds 386,210 acre-feet of water. When filled to the Flood Pool level of 943’ msl (spillway height), the amount contained is 732,210 af. An acre-foot of water is about 326,000 gallons. The lake must be at or above a level of 903’ msl to support boating and swimming. This is called the “Recreational Level.” Such activities attract about a million user-visits per year to the lake’s parks, swimming areas, and launch ramps. Another 3 million user-visits are attracted to the river just downstream of the dam. These visitors, in turn, frequent and support local businesses.
Canyon Lake and the Guadalupe River basin is managed by the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA), a quasi-political entity established by the state legislature in the 1930’s. In 1957, GBRA managed to gain authority to divert up to 50,000 acre-feet of water per year from Canyon Lake, for sale to other entities. As of 2001, however, GBRA had diverted only about 17,000 af in any one year. Yet the lake still fell to 902.66’ msl in the mild drought of 2000. All but one public launch ramps were closed for use.
According to records from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, over a million recreational user visits are recorded to the lake each year, with visitors from 100 surrounding Texas counties. Over 4 million user-visits are made to the lake and the scenic Guadalupe River. There are five marinas and seven parks on the lake, and two military recreational areas. About 34,000 residents and hundreds of local businesses surround the lake, which is frequently called the “Crown Jewel of the Hill Country.”
Residents and business owners around the lake first learned in 2001 that GBRA intended to divert up to 120,000 af/yr and distribute the water to a variety of customers, including some users located outside of its 10-county area of responsibility. Much of the water is destined to support new and existing golf courses and developments over the Trinity and Edwards aquifers. Mr. Bill West, general manager of GBRA, maintains that Canyon Reservoir (as he refers to Canyon Lake) is intended ONLY for conservation and flood control. “Recreation is not an intended purpose of Canyon Reservoir,” he maintains. FOCL representatives counter that "conservation and "diversion" are not mutually compatible uses of the water. "Conservation" and "recreation" are, however. Further, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers documents clearly show the extent to which planners intended for recreation to be an integral part of Canyon Lake operations.
Alarmed, a group of concerned citizens and business owners formed Friends of Canyon Lake, Inc. (FOCL), a non-profit corporation, to educate the general public and to speak for our concerns. We hired a board-certified attorney, whose research soon revealed that a large number of violations of state statutes, policies and regulations had been committed by GBRA and TNRCC in the preparation, submission and approval of the new diversion permit. Our attorneys filed a series of motions for reconsideration, which were repeatedly denied by TNRCC and a district court judge. So we appealed.
Our appeal was heard in Austin on September 11, 2002. The decision was rendered in December, for GBRA, and we again appealed, in January, 2003, to the Texas Supreme court. The State Supreme Court refused to hear our case. FOCL’s position remains that this certificate is administratively flawed and needs to be resubmitted, and that there are serious water-quality issues to be resolved. We truly believe the “firm yield” of Canyon Lake is insufficient to support such a large diversion during dry spells without irreparably damaging both the ecology of the lake and our fragile, recreation-based economy. We believe the civil rights of 34,000 residents have been violated. We need objective studies to confirm our concerns. Having exhausted our request for remedies in the State Court System, we have moved to the Federal arena.
The change in the Certificate of Adjudication allows the GBRA to divert more water than the firm yield of the lake. This means that the lake may go completely dry, and Canyon Lake will therefore not be a reliable water supply in times of drought when the water is needed most. Communities that currently rely on Canyon Lake as their major, and in some cases, only source of water may be badly affected by this ill-considered change. Further, GBRA plans to charge the highest water rates in Texas--perhaps the U.S.--for the treated water. Cheaper water may be available soon to those areas needing it.
“Firm yield” is a difficult term to describe to the average citizen. It is defined as the amount of water that can be diverted from a reservoir during the "drought of record" until the reservoir is empty. In 1991, GBRA published a report that a contractor, HDR Engineering, had officially determined the “firm yield” of Canyon Lake to be 40,000 acre-feet per year, but that with “partial subordination of hydroelectric rights,” the firm yield could "probably be increased to about 50,000 af/yr." In 1997, however, the same HDR Engineering, again at GBRA’s ’s request, recalculated the firm yield of Canyon Lake at approximately 90,000 acre feet. This request was to support a new plan for GBRA to increase the diversion to 90,000 af/yr. Public records disclosed that TNRCC’s technical staff disagreed with this greatly increased calculation, and so TNRCC publicly restated the firm yield to be about 77,500 af/yr. Our engineers obtained from TNRCC the actual FORTRAN calculations reportedly used by HDR in its second effort, and found serious fault with the methodology used. Raw historical data appears to have been deliberately “created” and inserted in the calculations to increase the firm yield of Canyon Lake. We jokingly refer to this as the “Magic Water.” The later firm yield calculations are therefore questionable, and the actual FY is probably what was initially calculated by HDR in 1991, well below the diversion allowed in the permit amendment. GBRA refuses to divulge the latest calculations.
Texas Water Board Permit #1886 (September, 1958) authorized the diversion of a maximum of 50,000 af/yr of water from Canyon Lake for a period of 50 years. That contract runs until September 20, 2008. Water rights have been disputed in Texas for at least the last 25 years. To settle some of these disputes, the courts stepped in and issued Certificates of Adjudication to clarify water rights. GBRA was granted Certificate of Adjudication #18-2074 in 1981 to divert 50,000 acre-feet per year from Canyon Lake. This figure was apparently chosen without regard to the impact such a massive diversion would have on other uses of the water, and before the wholesale development surrounding the lake.
That Certificate of Adjudication (#18-2074) has since been amended many times by TNRCC. Questions have been raised whether TNRCC has the right to modify a Certificate of Adjudication that has been issued by the court system.
In the first revision (18-2074A), it’s important to note that GBRA requested and received from TNRCC permission to have all references to the more restrictive TWDB Permit #1886 be stricken from public record. It appears that this permit, a state record, has been expunged from state archives. We have obtained record copies from private sources, however. Further, we believe a “certificate of adjudication” does not override the restrictions of a contractual “permit.” Expunging Permit #1866 from public records was and still is highly unusual, especially since this permit is part of a Federal Contract that is valid until 2008.
The latest amendment to Certificate of Adjudication 18-2974 also allows GBRA to sell water out of its statutory ten-county district. Under GBRA’s enabling legislation, the GBRA cannot sell water outside of its 10 county-district unless it can be clearly shown that the water will not be needed in the statutory area for 50 years in the future. GBRA data and Texas Water Development Board data clearly show that there is a major shortage now, and it will only become more severe over the next 50 years. GBRA is therefore in technical violation of its own enabling legislation. This is just one more example of the strange happenings associated with this project.
GBRA has entered into contracts with SAWS, SARA, and Bexar Metro to sell water to Bexar County. These contracts are relatively small. It appears these were done mostly for political reasons and to establish a precedent for selling water outside its ten-county region. For example, the contract with SARA is for just 50 acre-feet per year, which amounts to only enough water for approximately 100 households. When Bexar Metro further examined the outrageous cost, and possible other sources, it withdrew from the arrangement.
State Senator Jeff Wentworth, Representative Ed Keumpel, and others were asked by hundreds of area constituents to intercede in efforts to save Canyon Lake and force an environmental impact statement. The replies from each of our elected representatives appeared to be from the same draft. In the replies, Wentworth, et al, stated that he had been assured by GBRA that the lake level would be above the 900’ msl level at least 90 percent of the time. Attached to the form letter replies from the legislators, however, was a GBRA fact sheet, dated March 29^th, 2001. On that fact sheet, the lake level is predicted by GBRA to be at the conservation pool level only about 42 percent of the time. The lake level is predicted to be as low as 890’ msl 49 percent of the time. We assume the missing 9 percent equates to previously displayed GBRA charts showing the lake level falling to the 880’ msl level “about 10 percent of the time.” FOCL believes that Senator Wentworth was misinformed. We have documentation that shows that a legislator faxed a copy of every letter he received from his constituents to the GBRA, and sent form letters to the constituents that were partially or fully prepared by GBRA staff. The contractor for the "Lake Benefits Study" recently concluded that the lake will be lower...substantially lower, in fact...and that this occurrence will have a 39 percent probability in any given year. Either our elected representatives were misinformed by GBRA and TCEQ, or they intentionally misled theirconstituents.
Before GBRA had the rights to sell additional water, GBRA officials entered into agreements with several municipalities for sale of the water. The municipalities agreed to support GBRA in obtaining the permit. The municipalities began paying for water they have yet to receive. These prospective agreements clearly show a carefully-crafted plan to solicit municipality and water supplier support in supporting GBRA’s efforts to increase the diversion of water from 50,000 acre feet to 90,000 acre feet per year.
GBRA’s board of directors is composed of representatives appointed by the governor. None are elected by county residents. Many of the current board members are commercial developers and real estate agents who may have a vested interest in distribution of the lake’s water elsewhere for development. (GBRA Annual Report, 2002)
When FOCL began to question GBRA officials and requested that an Environmental Impact Statement be performed before approval of the questionable permit, GBRA launched a bitter advertising campaign accusing the citizens of being self-interested obstructionists. This is significant since the advertising was paid for with public funds and attacked citizens that GBRA officials are supposed to serve.
The city of Blanco needs a supplementary source of water to augment the Blanco River, which, like the Guadalupe, is prone to going dry due to excess pumping. We were told that eight proposals were received by the city. Allegedly, in closed session, the Blanco city counsel selected the most expensive of the eight proposals…the one from GBRA. The proposed pipeline for the Blanco feed appears to pass property owned by wealthy landowners and developers who could divert water from the new pipeline for development of this ranchland. Blanco residents will subsidize this effort through higher water rates.
As stated, no Environmental or Economic Impact Statements for Certificate 18-2074E were ever performed. We have been repeatedly told “they weren’t necessary.” This is highly unusual, given the obvious potential impact on the region. Since FOCL, a local citizens’ group, could not afford to fund such studies, we asked the county judge to consider a county-funded impact assessment. At the hearing for commissioner approval, GBRA general manager Bill West stepped forward and offered to perform such an impact assessment for the county, but with a cap of only $100,000. A “Lake Advisory Committee” was formed to participate in the study definition, but GBRA directors promptly changed the study’s title to “Canyon Reservoir Benefits Study.” Any environmental or hydrology impact assessment was severely curtailed in this study, which, coincidentally, was performed by a previous GBRA contractor. The hoped-for environmental and economic impact assessment of the diversion thus appears to have been cleverly shifted to an offset comparison of benefits of the water’s diversion to assist regional growth and development of golf-course-related communities, albeit at the sacrifice of the fragile lake-based economy and ecology. The report has been released and states clearly that there will be a lower lake level than ever experienced, and that this will be a frequent occurrence. GBRA has attempted to portray this a "plus," however, by saying that it will not be as low as GBRA could have made it under its existing contract.
A senior geologist from a major oil company with a second home at Canyon Lake has carefully surveyed the shoreline structure of the lake. He has asserted that the delicate limestone-shale-marl stratification is fragile and prone to “slumping,” “sink-holing,” and erosion, particularly when subjected to alternate periods of wetting (expansion) and drying (contraction). He states that if shoreline integrity proves to be an issue once geological studies and geotechnical tests are conducted, then appropriate attention should be paid to how, if at all, that could affect the rock strata adjoining the dam and whether the structural integrity of the dam would be in jeopardy. In 2002, we had a severe flooding episode, with the lake level taken well over its design limit. The normal conservation pool at 909’ holds about 386,000 acre-feet. The flood pool at the spillway (943’) is reported to be about 736,000 af. The lake level crested at over 950’ msl. By extrapolation, it would appear that about 800,000 af of pressure was behind the dam at full flood on July 4, 2002. If GBRA regularly takes the lake down to the 880’ level (or lower) during subsequent dry periods, and we have similar 1998 or 2002 flood episodes, will the long term structural integrity of the dam be at risk?
As mentioned earlier, the mild drought of 2000 saw the level of the lake fall to 902.66’ msl. The Guadalupe River was bone-dry above the lake due to already heavy pumping demands. At that level, all but one of the public boat launch ramps were unusable. The parks were not useable, and all of the swimming areas were closed. The lowest level ever recorded at Canyon Lake is 899’ msl. Mr. West has stated as recently as February, 2003, that he might consider lengthening the boat launch ramps so they could be used at the 880’ msl level. We have calculated this would be financially and perhaps structurally infeasible due to the irregular nature of the lake bottom and some steep drop offs. In any case, the swimming areas, which provide recreation for thousands of lower-income families and their children, could not be used. It should be noted here that in 2001, Canyon Lake became the number one generator of park revenue in Texas for the Corps of Engineers, surpassing even far larger lakes with more parks, like Sam Rayburn.
If all of this isn't bad enough news, note also that GBRA has constructed and operates a large sewage treatment plant for the expansive Silverleaf Resorts “Hill Country Resort” timeshare complex on the north shore of Canyon Lake. We have learned that GBRA applied for an amended permit to greatly increase that discharge. The plant and its discharge point into the lake is located near the swimming areas for Canyon Park and the Fort Sam Houston Recreation Area. At 880’ msl, the normal volume of Canyon Lake would be reduced by about 50 percent. The discharge of such a large amount of partially treated sewage into the reduced-volume lake would appear to raise serious water quality concerns. There are no plans we know of to curtail effluent discharge when the lake is sucked down. Frequent users of the lake state they have already noticed an increase in the turbidity of the lake in recent years, particularly as the river dries up. Still, other developers are applying for additional sewage discharge permits into the Guadalupe River upstream of the lake, and a huge new development is under construction at the lake.
In August, 2002, we learned only by accident that the Corps of Engineers plans to build a Raw Water Intake Facility (giant pumping station) on Canyon Lake to support the new GBRA diversion. Numerous requests for public hearings were denied by the COE. Despite GBRA statements about lake levels, this huge pumping station is being designed to have a 30-foot-wide shaft, 160’ deep, with three horizontal borings into the lake at levels 880’, 860’, and 810’. This last level will be only 16’ above the lakebed! At that level, well over 95 percent of the water in the lake will have been extracted. The five marinas and any of the 700-800 boats remaining on the lake will be resting on the bottom. There will, according to USACE contour maps, be stagnant pools of water remaining in some of the shallow coves, which may serve as breeding ground for mosquitoes. GBRA will literally have the ability to drain Canyon Lake! It certainly appears that our elected representatives have been misled about GBRA plans for the future. They claim they are powerless to do anything now, however.
Please note that GBRA is a quasi-political agency formed in the 1930’s by the Texas legislature. GBRA receives no funding from the state, and thus is self-funded from the capture, distribution and sale of water theoretically owned by the residents of Texas. Income also accrues from hydroelectric generation and water treatment. As such, the more water GBRA sells or treats, the more income it receives for staff expansion, salaries, retirement programs, etc. When additional funds are desired, it only has to raise rates or increase sales, or both. Water has become the “oil” of this generation in Texas. Yet, county officials are powerless to control development outside of urban areas. Hence, developers and aggressive city managers see the need to take water from anywhere it is available, and send it to where development is occurring.
FOCL is not alone in its concern about GBRA stewardship of Canyon Lake and the Guadalupe River. A group known as the Guadalupe River Association is deeply concerned that the river above Canyon Lake has been poorly managed and allowed to have excess diversion. Another group (San Marcos River Foundation) is concerned that increasing demands on the Guadalupe and San Marcos Rivers are endangering wildlife, and has filed a claim for water rights, which has seriously upset representatives of GBRA, who apparently were trumped in this effort. The Northwest Comal County Environmental Coalition has sued to prevent construction of three new sewage plants on the Guadalupe River, above Canyon Lake.
The non-profit American Rivers Association in Washington recently stated that the Guadalupe River, specifically as managed by GBRA, has become the tenth most endangered river in America. See also statements by the Texas Rivers Protection Association. Concern has also been raised by property owner associations at lakes Dunlap and McQueeny. Further south, in Victoria, another group is spearheading an effort to thwart GBRA efforts to divert Guadalupe River back to San Antonio before it can maintain existing sea life in the gulf.. As you can see, Texas needs a decent regional analysis.
Last, please note that FOCL is a local, grassroots, non-profit organization formed by your neighbors. We are NOT politically connected or motivated, nor are we “anti-development,” “radicals” or “pessimists.” We are scared. Scared as business owners. Scared as residents. Scared as taxpayers. Many of us are active or retired senior executives with a great deal of education and practical experience. We are both Republicans and Democrats, but all dedicated Texans and residents of Comal County who sincerely believe that a few selfish people have made a fateful decision to desecrate a true Texas treasure. We sincerely believe much more needs to be known before this fatal step is taken. We need YOUR help and YOUR financial support to continue to fight for a full assessment and public discussion of the damage this project may do to our precious recreational and economic asset, our property values, and our health. Will you help?

Write us at: PO Box 1392, Canyon Lake, TX 78133, Email: info@friendsofcanyonlake.com

Note: The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) changed its name in 2002 to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

6/24/03