Local watershed group outlines role of upstream flood-retarding structures after July storms

Paul Wilburn, a representative of WCAID, told the Lampasas City Council during a July 2025 workshop that nine flood-retarding structures in the Upper Sulfur Creek watershed collectively provide roughly 26,171 acre-feet of flood-pool capacity and helped reduce flooding impacts during recent storms.

Why it matters: Wilburn said the storage capacity is “almost twice what the city of Lampasas uses in a year,” and the structures are designed to capture heavy runoff and meter releases over roughly a 10-day period. Council members and staff heard that the structures have reduced flood risk for the town for more than 60 years and that the recent rainfall filled only about half of the flood storage pool on the dams checked.

Wilburn described the dams’ design and maintenance needs, saying the initial design includes a sediment-storage area meant to hold dirt and debris separate from the active flood pool. He said some of the structures hold water year-round in that sediment-storage area and recounted historical flood fatalities on Salt/Sulfur Creek in 1873 and the 1957 Mothers Day flood.

On maintenance actions, Wilburn said the group has refiled “notice of inundations” easements — the landowner-granted easements that define the flood-pool area and allow work within that footprint — and has begun mechanical and chemical vegetation control on dam embankments. He described a pilot drone herbicide application on one embankment that he said appeared to reduce brush within 12 days and that the work must use herbicides certified safe for aquatic use. Wilburn estimated the initial drone spraying effort cost about $1,500 and said chemical effects may take up to a year to be fully evident.

He also discussed plans to reapply for a grading/rehabilitation project on one structure, identified in the presentation as FR S6, to qualify for state and federal funding and said the group is preparing additional grant applications and outreach materials, including web presence updates.

Discussion, direction and next steps: The presentation was informational; no council motion or binding action was recorded in the workshop transcript. Wilburn asked for continued local support and noted a technical restriction mentioned in the presentation — described in the meeting as a “TCU requirement” — that prohibits blasting or dynamite within a half-mile of the dams. Council members were given time to ask questions; the transcript records no formal vote on project funding or approvals during the workshop.

Ending: The council received the presentation as part of the workshop agenda. Wilburn and other WCAID board members present (listed below) said they will pursue grant funding and continue maintenance activities; the group also signaled it would return with applications and more detailed cost estimates when funding decisions are needed.