|
|
Monthly Water Quality Report
Current Water Quality Conditions
January 2012
|
 |
January’s water quality netted the Lower Colorado River Basin excellent ratings at ten monitoring locations: The San Saba, Llano and Pedernales rivers; the Highland Lakes, and the Colorado River at Austin and Bay City. Three monitoring stations: the Colorado River at Bastrop, La Grange and Columbus scored fair ratings because of elevated nutrients. The two remaining sites received good scores: the Colorado River at Smithville and at Wharton, with normal water quality conditions for this time of year. Bacteria levels were low throughout the basin and clarity was excellent. Monitoring was conducted prior to the large rain event of January 24 and 25.
All Highland Lakes sites and the San Saba, Llano and Pedernales rivers earned excellent water quality ratings this month. Water quality measurements were ample for healthy aquatic life and contact recreation with high dissolved oxygen values and low bacteria and nutrients. Clarity at Lake Buchanan was one foot. Lake LBJ, Inks Lake, Lake Marble Falls and Travis reported three to five feet of visibility. River clarity on the Llano River was greater than the sampling depth at over three feet. The San Saba River reported one half foot of clarity and the Pedernales greater than the total depth of one half foot. Water temperatures ranged from lows of 50° to 53° in the upstream rivers and Inks Lake to a high of 61° on Lake Buchanan with upper 50’s elsewhere.
January monitoring revealed healthy dissolved oxygen measurements and low bacteria levels at all downstream locations. The Colorado River at Austin earned an excellent rating, as did Bay City. The Colorado River at Smithville and Wharton earned good scores, while Bastrop, La Grange and Columbus were rated fair due to elevated nutrients. Though typical for this time of year when flow is wastewater dominant, high nitrate levels on these stretches of the river were still exacerbated by drought-induced low flows. The Colorado River at Austin and Wharton reported river transparency of three and a half feet, with Smithville, La Grange, Columbus and Bay City submitting values of two to three feet. Bastrop was clear to the bottom, though the monitoring station was only half a foot. Water temperatures ranged from a low of 46° at Austin to a high of 68° in Bay City. Elsewhere water temperatures were in the 50’s. Heavy rains and associated runoff on January 24 and 25 triggered additional sampling in the Bastrop area to monitor the effects of the Bastrop County Fires. Water quality results were not available at the time of publication and will be discussed in next month’s water quality report.
|
For information on a specific lake or river, see a link below:
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
LCRA's monthly water quality report is intended to give the public a snapshot of overall water quality conditions. But conditions can change quickly. High water quality index ratings do not preclude the existence of bacteria that may cause infections. Swimming in a river, lake or pond, rather than a disinfected swimming pool, carries some risk. So the public needs to take precautions at all times, such as avoiding stagnant water and staying out of the water after rains.
|
LCRA monitors the quality of the lower Colorado River as part of its responsibility as the river's steward. The monthly water quality report is issued monthly utilizing data collected by LCRA staff and Colorado River Watch Network certified volunteers to characterize the general quality of the river, tributaries and Highland Lakes using ratings of “excellent,” “good,” “fair” and “poor.” The index is based on a list of parameters, including dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform or E.coli bacteria, nutrients (phosphorus and/or nitrogen), temperature and total dissolved solids or conductivity.
Here's a primer on what the ratings mean:
- Excellent: All water quality parameters measured are within optimal ranges. The water quality supports all designated uses and is esthetically pleasing and suitable for swimming.
- Good: At least four of six parameters are within the acceptable ranges. The water quality supports most designated uses and is esthetically pleasing and suitable for swimming.
- Fair: Half of the parameters are not within acceptable ranges or bacteria levels exceed state standards. Water quality supports noncontact recreational uses but may not be suitable for swimming.
- Poor: At least four of the six parameters, including fecal bacteria, are outside acceptable limits. Contact recreation (such as swimming) is not recommended. To date, major flood events have been the primary reason for a poor rating.
|
|