I think you have that backwards Sneaky.

Mark Twain said “in Texas, whiskey is for drinkin & water is for fightin over”

that has been going on for only how God knows how far back.

How is this a water war? If he dug a hole in the middle of the river the size of a football field, 9ft deep, at 25 cfs flow it would be full in less than 6 hours and back to flowing 25 cfs on down stream.
He isn't stopping the flow or regulating it.

You can bet he's paying property taxes on it.

its not, it wont impede flow, there is a bunch on the river as it is

I would take that bet.

the llano river has these already all the way to llano. Precedent has been set.

This is only making news because of the hunting restrictions put in place recently. Its dumb waste of time. He gets his permit

The entire Highland Lakes Chain is basically the same thing.....only on a larger scale.

Its just a long cascade of impoundments, but it all still flows to the Gulf (albeit governed at times along the way, read LCRA).

Man will always make his mark on the land (for good or bad), that is our nature. Little that we have access to....will remain in a purely natural state.

(a) Without obtaining a permit, a person may construct on the person’s own property a dam or reservoir with normal storage of not more than 200 acre feet of water for domestic and livestock purposes. A person who temporarily stores more than 200 acre-feet of water in a dam or reservoir described by this subsection is not required to obtain a permit for the dam or reservoir if the person can demonstrate that the person has not stored in the dam or reservoir more than 200 acre-feet of water on average in any 12-month period. This exemption does not apply to a commercial operation. [text of subsection (b) as added by HB 247, Chapter 1427, Acts of the 77th Legislature, 2001:]

(b) Without obtaining a permit, a person may construct on the person’s property in an unincorporated area a dam or reservoir with normal storage of not more that 200 acre-feet of water for commercial or noncommercial wildlife management, including fishing but not including fish farming. [text of subsection (b) as added by SB 2, Chapter 966, Acts of the 77th Legislature, 2001:]

(b) Without obtaining a permit, a person may construct on the person’s property a dam or reservoir with normal storage of not more that 200 acre-feet of water for fish and wildlife purposes if the property on which the dam or reservoir will be constructed is qualified open-space land, as defined by Section 23.51, Tax Code. This exemption does not apply to a commercial operation.

https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications...gation/riddell/bridgesanddams.phtml#dams

Well there you go.

i think because of the state loose ruling on Navigable river ways, he has to get permitted.

Being that they are in place now, dont see it not getting permited

TCEQ requires a permit on a navigable river.

If it’s on a creek, dam cannot be more than 6’ tall from the river bed or it requires approval.

There are a lot of 5’11” dams on creeks across the state

Not many rivers that are private property. Not sure what would give him the right to build a dam on public property.

Since you are quoting facts to these boys. The rights to surface water in Texas are owned by the state and held in trust for the citizens. Usage is commonly granted for but not limited to activities such as human consumption, agriculture, and industry but shall not impede pre existing water rights. That is the crux of the squabble. Questionable projects have been permitted in the past. More will be permitted in the future. In light of the landowners wealth, I would not bet against his chances of buying a permit.

this has nothing to do with wealth, the entire river has these in place for numerous reasons installed by land owners. Only way to pool water most months of the year. Hell the state does same thing its self. Drive over the Llano city bridge. Only reason water pools there is because if that small damn, if not its a giant red sand river bed with a trickle of water most months

reason 120 that state screwed up on definition of “navigable”

Question: Is the South Llano considered a navigable waterway?

Pedestrian navigable. You can walk most of it without getting your knees wet.

state statue yes(bed only has to be 30ft wide not flow), federal no.

Yes and there is a state owned public access point.

Bobo,

I have spent a good bit of time around there. We have family out there that own a few hundred acres on the river. I am fairly well informed. I love fishing for Guadalupe bass out of a canoe or kayak with an ultralight in that clear water. My take on public access to public water in Texas is obviously different than yours. (We have had this same discussion about access to public water discussing beaches in the past). Without a public access point above the proposed damn, and private property to the river bank, the landowner in effect takes the stretch of river he owns property along and transforms it to private water. That is what people are up in arms about. I don’t know how much clearer I can make it than that. I personally am against taking any of the public water in Texas away from the citizens. You obviously feel differently. I can agree to disagree with you Bobo. I am all for private landowners rights Bobo and would be considered a stakeholder. A private individual damming a public waterway is bound to create a public uproar though, and it has. Ultimately neither you or me will have a voice in the outcome.

If he does get the permit, we can all access it via the navigable waterway and fish it all we want.

Case Studies
The effects upon public rights of damming a navigable stream were considered in a case involving the Medina River. In discussing the dam owner’s permit, the Supreme Court stated: “It gave no title to the water, but only the right to divert and use so much of the water appropriated as might be necessarily required when beneficially used for the purpose for which it was appropriated. ... It gave no title to the fish in the water of the lake, no exclusive right to take the fish from the lake, and no right to interfere with the public in their use of the river and its water for navigation, fishing, and other lawful purposes further than interference necessarily result[ing] from the construction and maintenance of the dams and lakes in such manner as reasonably to accomplish the purpose of the appropriation.”

Diversion Lake Club v. Heath, 126 Tex. 129, 86 S.W.2d 441, 446 (1935)

TPWD and the assistant attorney general at the time it was published has done a fair job of laying out all the different laws regarding public use of streams in Texas. Or at least the best job possible with all the different laws that apply.

https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/nonpwdpubs/water_issues/rivers/navigation/riddell/

This isnt an access issue, if anything it creates opportunity by creating a pool. This has zero to do with access. It’s deemed navigable by statue so it public use from any access point up or down river same as it us before or after small damn

My best friend has two of these damns in the llano. His ranch has been under same family since 1920. In fact thats how most ranches got their water, they build dams and water wheeled it up to houses. Both his pools hold fish 12 months a year, even now when flow is negligible. In fact because of the many damned pools is why you would be able to take a clear kayak and see fish in the llano.

Most of the llano probably wouldn’t be kayak-able with out those dams building pools back behind them most months of the year.

Any way this takes nothing away from the river’s water flow or access, so both those arguements are out.