Print Page - Tulsa firm designing low water dams.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080703_16_A5_hCHMHi80809

quote:

Panel recommends Tulsa firm for dam designs

by: KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
7/3/2008 12:00 AM

CH2M Hill is one of 6 firms responding to a request for qualifications.

An evaluation committee has unanimously recommended CH2M Hill of Tulsa to be the design and engineering firm for the Arkansas River low-water dams project.

The county commissioners will vote on the recommendation Monday.

CH2M, which did work on Confluence Park in Denver, was one of six companies that responded to the county's request for qualifications issued in January.

Tulsa County Purchasing Director Linda Dorrell said, "It was a very, very strong team; they had worked together on numerous other projects successfully."

Dorrell said the county will take 45 to 60 days to negotiate a contract with CH2M.

By law, public entities are not allowed to consider price when evaluating proposals for engineering work on public projects.

However, Dorrell said that if the county is unable to reach a contract agreement with CH2M, the county would come back to the firm that ranked second in the selection process, C.H. Guernsey & Co.

"I don't anticipate that happening," she said.

Dorrell said the committee used weighted evaluation criteria based on four factors: the qualifications of the firm, including experience and responsiveness; the qualifications of the key individuals who would be performing the work; references from comparable past projects; and the firm's demonstrated understanding of the proposed project.

After the evaluation committee had narrowed the field to C.H. Guernsey & Co. and CH2M, the committee's technical team visited three projects completed by each firm.

Therecommendation comes less than a year after county residents rejected a proposal to raise the county sales tax four-tenths of a cent over seven years to pay for $282 million in infrastructure projects.

The private sector had also pledged $117 million for improvements along the banks of the river if voters approved the project.

The thrust of the proposal was to build low-water dams in Sand Springs and Jenks and to modify the Zink Dam in Tulsa, projects first envisioned in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.

After the vote, county commissioners decided to look for ways to keep river development alive. Commissioners in December voted to move forward with the design and engineering work approved by voters in Vision 2025.

Officials have estimated that it will cost about $100 million in 2008 dollars to complete the dam projects.

About half of that is expected to come from federal matching funds authorized in last year's Water Resources Development Act.

An additional $10 million in Vision 2025 and Four to Fix the County funds plus $25 million in state bond money have been targeted for the project.

Dorrell said she expects CH2M to begin work as soon as a contract agreement is reached.

The design, engineering and permitting work on Zink Dam should take about 18 months to two years once it begins, with the same work on the two new dams to take as long as three or four years, officials have said.

I just don't understand why OKC was able to include locks with their low water dams (and thus create a navigable river through the city) while we are not. Of course I'm not an Arkansas River expert and the Arkansas and Oklahoma Rivers are very different. However when I drive over the Okla. River in OKC and see riverboats using the locks I wonder why the same thing couldn't happen in Tulsa with a larger, more scenic river with actual attractions along the banks??

And about the library, I would hope we get another chance to vote on that with a better site and vision. I personally would like to see a plan created by the city to bring a convention hotel to the library site that also expands and directly connects to the adjacent convention center. The old city hall tower would be used for county offices or torn down to make way for an expanded conv. center. A new signature library would then be built at 3rd and Denver across from the BOk Center. The federal building would be rebuilt in south downtown near TCC and that site would become a park in between the hotel, conv. center, arena, and library. Frisco and Elwood Aves. and 5th Street would be restored to their original grid before they were wiped out by the Civic Center in the 60's.

quote:
Originally posted by SXSW

I just don't understand why OKC was able to include locks with their low water dams (and thus create a navigable river through the city) while we are not. Of course I'm not an Arkansas River expert and the Arkansas and Oklahoma Rivers are very different. However when I drive over the Okla. River in OKC and see riverboats using the locks I wonder why the same thing couldn't happen in Tulsa with a larger, more scenic river with actual attractions along the banks??

And about the library, I would hope we get another chance to vote on that with a better site and vision. I personally would like to see a plan created by the city to bring a convention hotel to the library site that also expands and directly connects to the adjacent convention center. The old city hall tower would be used for county offices or torn down to make way for an expanded conv. center. A new signature library would then be built at 3rd and Denver across from the BOk Center. The federal building would be rebuilt in south downtown near TCC and that site would become a park in between the hotel, conv. center, arena, and library. Frisco and Elwood Aves. and 5th Street would be restored to their original grid before they were wiped out by the Civic Center in the 60's.

I recall that the Vision 2025 program director posted here some time ago that a lock system was not feasible due to the rate of fall (in altitude) of the Arkansas River through Tulsa. It’s probably the same reason the McClellan-Kerr system routes only to far east Tulsa/Catoosa instead of through the city. These are not issue that you would have when damming a drainage ditch. Construction costs in a drainage ditch would have to have been only a fraction on what building a more dams on the Arkansas (being a real river) will cost as well.

quote:
Originally posted by SXSW

I just don't understand why OKC was able to include locks with their low water dams (and thus create a navigable river through the city) while we are not. Of course I'm not an Arkansas River expert and the Arkansas and Oklahoma Rivers are very different. However when I drive over the Okla. River in OKC and see riverboats using the locks I wonder why the same thing couldn't happen in Tulsa with a larger, more scenic river with actual attractions along the banks??

I can understand your frustration. There are many differences between the two rivers. One huge difference is that here in Tulsa we have several federally endangered species that were not present in the previously brush-hogged Oklahoma River lakes corridor. In addition we have multiple industrial and municipal discharge sources that work well in moving water but would not bode well in a series of constant shallow pool lakes.

Remember, these projects are (potentially) the first of many possible projects along and in the river as identified in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and hopefully as it becomes feasible additional projects and enhancements can be added.

quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025

quote:
Originally posted by SXSW

I just don't understand why OKC was able to include locks with their low water dams (and thus create a navigable river through the city) while we are not. Of course I'm not an Arkansas River expert and the Arkansas and Oklahoma Rivers are very different. However when I drive over the Okla. River in OKC and see riverboats using the locks I wonder why the same thing couldn't happen in Tulsa with a larger, more scenic river with actual attractions along the banks??

I can understand your frustration. There are many differences between the two rivers. One huge difference is that here in Tulsa we have several federally endangered species that were not present in the previously brush-hogged Oklahoma River lakes corridor. In addition we have multiple industrial and municipal discharge sources that work well in moving water but would not bode well in a series of constant shallow pool lakes.

Remember, these projects are (potentially) the first of many possible projects along and in the river as identified in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and hopefully as it becomes feasible additional projects and enhancements can be added.

I understand we have more issues than the Oklahoma River, I figured as much. However similar large rivers like the Missouri and Ohio have low water dams that allow navigation on the river, and I'm sure they have the same issues with endangered species and industrial discharge. Wouldn't the dams already be designed to keep water flowing, even at low levels? I don't see how having a lock on one side (the deeper, rockier west bank most likely) would greatly affect the dam or the river.

quote:
Originally posted by SXSW

quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025

quote:
Originally posted by SXSW

I just don't understand why OKC was able to include locks with their low water dams (and thus create a navigable river through the city) while we are not. Of course I'm not an Arkansas River expert and the Arkansas and Oklahoma Rivers are very different. However when I drive over the Okla. River in OKC and see riverboats using the locks I wonder why the same thing couldn't happen in Tulsa with a larger, more scenic river with actual attractions along the banks??

I can understand your frustration. There are many differences between the two rivers. One huge difference is that here in Tulsa we have several federally endangered species that were not present in the previously brush-hogged Oklahoma River lakes corridor. In addition we have multiple industrial and municipal discharge sources that work well in moving water but would not bode well in a series of constant shallow pool lakes.

Remember, these projects are (potentially) the first of many possible projects along and in the river as identified in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and hopefully as it becomes feasible additional projects and enhancements can be added.

I understand we have more issues than the Oklahoma River, I figured as much. However similar large rivers like the Missouri and Ohio have low water dams that allow navigation on the river, and I'm sure they have the same issues with endangered species and industrial discharge. Wouldn't the dams already be designed to keep water flowing, even at low levels? I don't see how having a lock on one side (the deeper, rockier west bank most likely) would greatly affect the dam or the river.

Question: Are you wanting to lock through so you can float down or be able to run both directions?

quote:
Originally posted by SXSW

Creating the ability for small boats and potentially a river ferry to go from each "lake" to the next (up and down) would be the goal of the locks. In Omaha, Pittsburgh, Louisville, and other inland river cities people keep their small boats at marinas on the river and use the river as an urban recreational lake. I don't see why we couldn't do that in Tulsa if the water level was sufficient behind the dams and there were locks so that you could go from, say, Bixby to Sand Springs.

It would be amazing if you could one day go from Tulsa to the Kerr navigation system at Muskogee but in the mean time it would be good to be able to boat in the city. I'm not sure how deep it would require the river to be but probably somewhere from 8-10 ft.

Waterboy seems to know more about the river than anyone on here, maybe he can provide some wisdom on the issue of locks...

I have spent time talking with Mr. V2025. He has great technical knowledge about the river. Worked on construction of the Zink Dam so he knows where the bones are buried. However, we learned about this river in different ways! I don't know what depth would be required at the lock, I assume it would depend on the design, but as far as navigability for small ferries or excursion boats using poly logs as floatation, you could make it upstream from Zink Lake to Sand Springs with a depth of 3ft at the 11th street bridge. I know, I've done it with a 30ft long tri-toon and an inboard/outboard setup. With a little help from a hover cushion you could do it with a lot less.

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by SXSW

Creating the ability for small boats and potentially a river ferry to go from each "lake" to the next (up and down) would be the goal of the locks. In Omaha, Pittsburgh, Louisville, and other inland river cities people keep their small boats at marinas on the river and use the river as an urban recreational lake. I don't see why we couldn't do that in Tulsa if the water level was sufficient behind the dams and there were locks so that you could go from, say, Bixby to Sand Springs.

It would be amazing if you could one day go from Tulsa to the Kerr navigation system at Muskogee but in the mean time it would be good to be able to boat in the city. I'm not sure how deep it would require the river to be but probably somewhere from 8-10 ft.

Waterboy seems to know more about the river than anyone on here, maybe he can provide some wisdom on the issue of locks...

I have spent time talking with Mr. V2025. He has great technical knowledge about the river. Worked on construction of the Zink Dam so he knows where the bones are buried. However, we learned about this river in different ways! I don't know what depth would be required at the lock, I assume it would depend on the design, but as far as navigability for small ferries or excursion boats using poly logs as floatation, you could make it upstream from Zink Lake to Sand Springs with a depth of 3ft at the 11th street bridge. I know, I've done it with a 30ft long tri-toon and an inboard/outboard setup. With a little help from a hover cushion you could do it with a lot less.

Surely we can get at least 6' in the channel at all times (except extreme drought)? That would allow most small motorboats and cruisers.

Low water dams with locks on the west bank and then a spillway that more resembles at natural waterfall would be great. Something like St. Anthony's Lock/Dam in Minneapolis on a smaller scale:
(http://k43.pbase.com/o2/94/6094/1/52558042.StAnthonyFalls1695.jpg)

quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

You might be able to have a ferry that goes from Zink to Sand Springs but it would take one heck of a dam to put enough water in the river from Jenks up to Zink. If your wanting some sort of viable transportation from Jenks to Tulsa and SS, rail would be cheaper. Otherwise these locks would be purely recreational. Right? BTW, What would be the typical cost of a lock for a dam like these anyway?

How do you figure that? If the dam at Jenks is as proposed it will back up water to at least I-44. At 4500cfs there is plenty of water between I-44 and Zink Lake. 75% of the last decade, the water has exceeded that level between 6pm and 2am which is when it most likely would transport riders.

Viable transportation? You mean replacing Riverside commuter traffic? No, of course not. But once again you look at it as utilitarian value and compare it to rail which is odd because there is no real need for dams on this river at all except to create watery visions and promote commercial river bank development. Actually, considering the cost of fuel, maintenance and railbed improvements hot air balloons and dirigibles would be cheaper than rail. Cost? The whole thing is too costly for utilitarian value.

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

You might be able to have a ferry that goes from Zink to Sand Springs but it would take one heck of a dam to put enough water in the river from Jenks up to Zink. If your wanting some sort of viable transportation from Jenks to Tulsa and SS, rail would be cheaper. Otherwise these locks would be purely recreational. Right? BTW, What would be the typical cost of a lock for a dam like these anyway?

How do you figure that? If the dam at Jenks is as proposed it will back up water to at least I-44. At 4500cfs there is plenty of water between I-44 and Zink Lake. 75% of the last decade, the water has exceeded that level between 6pm and 2am which is when it most likely would transport riders.

Viable transportation? You mean replacing Riverside commuter traffic? No, of course not. But once again you look at it as utilitarian value and compare it to rail which is odd because there is no real need for dams on this river at all except to create watery visions and promote commercial river bank development. Actually, considering the cost of fuel, maintenance and railbed improvements hot air balloons and dirigibles would be cheaper than rail. Cost? The whole thing is too costly for utilitarian value.

But how much MORE is it going to cost? We both can agree we want water in the river, and that we will get. You and perhaps some others want locks for recreational purposes. I and some others may want other things, like real bathrooms, bleachers, etc at the V-ball courts. There are things you use that you think are important, there are things I use and that I think are important. Just curious how much yours will cost? What are we asking for here? Could be millions to tens of millions for all I know. That could do a looot of other things along the river which far more people would use.

Of course rail is still the best option for mass commuter transit in the river valley (Bixby, Jenks, Tulsa, Sand Springs). However for recreational and tourism purposes the locks could be very beneficial. Multiple hour ferries could potentially run on weekends between Sand Springs, downtown (by the River's Edge or by the Rt. 66 Museum), the QuikTrip park at 41st, the Creek Casino, Riverwalk Crossing, the Aquarium, and eventually the River District. Water taxis could run between the Jenks/South Tulsa river attractions so people could spend a day on the river without having to drive to the fairly spread-out attractions.

For recreational purposes people could keep their boats on the river at a marina (maybe in the cove at the west bank festival park?) or you could rent a boat, kayak, or canoe. I know I would consider moving my boat from Grand Lake to Tulsa if I could cruise down the river from Bixby to Sand Springs. The river is already wide enough to be a small lake, all it needs now is to be constantly filled with water and a way to get from each pool to the next via locks. I think there could potentially be a big market for Tulsans keeping their small motorboats on the river either just for recreation or fishing. It gives you something else to do recreation-wise right in the city limits, something that could set Tulsa apart...

And I'm not sure about additional cost, but I believe it would be worth it in the LONG RUN. A quote from OKC's former mayor Ron Norick:

And as for his prior role as mayor, Norick noted, “In the early days of the MAPS program, I recall some substantial debate as to the need to install locks in the two upstream dams. Today, with the official launch of Oklahoma River Cruises, it is pretty clear the city council chose wisely back then.”

I am pessimistic about any development of boating uses on the river. First off I don't relish private users docking their powerboats on it. We don't have the mentality for that kind of use. We don't have the administrative infrastructure. Issues of policing, licensing, safety, ecology, pollution, testing, even ownership of the river remain unresolved. As long as its easier and cheaper to ignore its usage thats what will happen. Human powered craft, perhaps, but as long as landlubber attitudes prevail here there will be no development of water activities.

Ask an engineer Artist. The cost must not be too prohibitive as OKC and tons of other communities have provided them. Of course they may not have as many bathrooms I guess. How much MORE will it cost for bathrooms, bleachers and volleyball courts? You know, those amenities so in demand by the homeless and deviates they attract?[;)] We can put bathrooms, bleachers and v-ball courts in any park in Tulsa, why is it so important along the river when all the great new shopping, casinos and restaurant/bars will provide them?

We both know you don't particularly care for water activities. Your remarks are akin to me asking why we spend so much public money on art museums and theatre cause so few of us visit them. This may not be your thread to comment on.

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

You might be able to have a ferry that goes from Zink to Sand Springs but it would take one heck of a dam to put enough water in the river from Jenks up to Zink. If your wanting some sort of viable transportation from Jenks to Tulsa and SS, rail would be cheaper. Otherwise these locks would be purely recreational. Right? BTW, What would be the typical cost of a lock for a dam like these anyway?

How do you figure that? If the dam at Jenks is as proposed it will back up water to at least I-44. At 4500cfs there is plenty of water between I-44 and Zink Lake. 75% of the last decade, the water has exceeded that level between 6pm and 2am which is when it most likely would transport riders.

Viable transportation? You mean replacing Riverside commuter traffic? No, of course not. But once again you look at it as utilitarian value and compare it to rail which is odd because there is no real need for dams on this river at all except to create watery visions and promote commercial river bank development. Actually, considering the cost of fuel, maintenance and railbed improvements hot air balloons and dirigibles would be cheaper than rail. Cost? The whole thing is too costly for utilitarian value.

The dam at Jenks will likely back water to just above 81st street, At this time it is not possible to go all the way to 51st both for hydraulic (although the use of flash boards on this structure also is an option and would accomplish that result and could easily be added in the future) and water quality concerns related to the discharge from the City's South Side WWTP.

Interesting discussion; unfortunately, much of what you are describing with a boat channel (sans locks which are quite expensive, I would venture the one in the photo might be 5-8 million per location with that approach flume) was included the living river concept (although not at that deep) that was in the defeated river proposal but is not in the reduced plan at this time but could easily be added in the future if funds become available and the desire is there.

The dam in the photo is a good looking step weir, and is one of the design types that will be further evaluated although we are leaning (but not set) towards a more roughed type of structure.

We are beginning the scoping process and I anticipate including public refresher (likely meetings) program on the proposed improvements and to solicit fresh comments and floggings[;)].

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

I am pessimistic about any development of boating uses on the river. First off I don't relish private users docking their powerboats on it. We don't have the mentality for that kind of use. We don't have the administrative infrastructure. Issues of policing, licensing, safety, ecology, pollution, testing, even ownership of the river remain unresolved. As long as its easier and cheaper to ignore its usage thats what will happen. Human powered craft, perhaps, but as long as landlubber attitudes prevail here there will be no development of water activities.

Ask an engineer Artist. The cost must not be too prohibitive as OKC and tons of other communities have provided them. Of course they may not have as many bathrooms I guess. How much MORE will it cost for bathrooms, bleachers and volleyball courts? You know, those amenities so in demand by the homeless and deviates they attract?[;)] We can put bathrooms, bleachers and v-ball courts in any park in Tulsa, why is it so important along the river when all the great new shopping, casinos and restaurant/bars will provide them?

We both know you don't particularly care for water activities. Your remarks are akin to me asking why we spend so much public money on art museums and theatre cause so few of us visit them. This may not be your thread to comment on.

There isnt going to be any shopping or casinos at the 71st Vball courts. Those courts are used all the time, just about every day in the spring and summer there are people out there using them. On busy days it easily numbers in the hundreds. When I used to get weekly teams started with friends (havent been able to this year with the project I am working on) my friends alone would take up to 4 nets, sometimes more, thats 8 teams of 6 plus people on the sidelines. Then there were always other groups out there to boot. Its probably one of the most used sections of the park, period. There are like 3 little picnic tables and a couple porta potties. They also have large events there like the Sand Blazer Volley Ball Tournaments. BTW I bet more people use the Vball courts there, and the art museums and theaters, than use those boats. The number of people in town that will use those things per dollar, is much better than the number of people who would use the locks per dollar. You would get a lot more bang for your buck, a lot more people using the Vball facilities, and appreciating it, than would use the locks, especially dollar per dollar. For 1 million you could probably get some great vball facilities which would serve more people than 4 or 5 million would for locks. Your always crying and *****ing about what you want, what you think is soooo important and expecting everyone to "jump on board", yet you dont give a crap and think as being stupid what others want or their opinions on the matter.

quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

I am pessimistic about any development of boating uses on the river. First off I don't relish private users docking their powerboats on it. We don't have the mentality for that kind of use. We don't have the administrative infrastructure. Issues of policing, licensing, safety, ecology, pollution, testing, even ownership of the river remain unresolved. As long as its easier and cheaper to ignore its usage thats what will happen. Human powered craft, perhaps, but as long as landlubber attitudes prevail here there will be no development of water activities.

Ask an engineer Artist. The cost must not be too prohibitive as OKC and tons of other communities have provided them. Of course they may not have as many bathrooms I guess. How much MORE will it cost for bathrooms, bleachers and volleyball courts? You know, those amenities so in demand by the homeless and deviates they attract?[;)] We can put bathrooms, bleachers and v-ball courts in any park in Tulsa, why is it so important along the river when all the great new shopping, casinos and restaurant/bars will provide them?

We both know you don't particularly care for water activities. Your remarks are akin to me asking why we spend so much public money on art museums and theatre cause so few of us visit them. This may not be your thread to comment on.

There isnt going to be any shopping or casinos at the 71st Vball courts. Those courts are used all the time, just about every day in the spring and summer there are people out there using them. On busy days it easily numbers in the hundreds. When I used to get weekly teams started with friends (havent been able to this year with the project I am working on) my friends alone would take up to 4 nets, sometimes more, thats 8 teams of 6 plus people on the sidelines. Then there were always other groups out there to boot. Its probably one of the most used sections of the park, period. There are like 3 little picnic tables and a couple porta potties. They also have large events there like the Sand Blazer Volley Ball Tournaments. BTW I bet more people use the Vball courts there, and the art museums and theaters, than use those boats. The number of people in town that will use those things per dollar, is much better than the number of people who would use the locks per dollar. You would get a lot more bang for your buck, a lot more people using the Vball facilities, and appreciating it, than would use the locks, especially dollar per dollar. For 1 million you could probably get some great vball facilities which would serve more people than 4 or 5 million would for locks. Your always crying and *****ing about what you want, what you think is soooo important and expecting everyone to "jump on board", yet you dont give a crap and think as being stupid what others want or their opinions on the matter.

Well I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Maybe not. Your remarks are just surprising to me. Yeah, Sand Volleyball...its hot. Everyone's doing it. We can't build those courts fast enough. Maybe you could talk Kaiser into giving you guys some real bathrooms and showers.

Here's a little insight. I talk about what I know something about, am passionate about and I can gain enjoyment from enlightening others about. There are many threads I don't participate in because of the lack of one or more of those elements. It keeps me from comparing sand volleyball to river development issues. When I err in that general principal it doesn't take long for someone to make it clear to me.

BTW, I didn't start this thread nor was I the first to note how shortsighted building dams without provision for interconnectability is.

edit: I've played sand volleyball and I love volleyball in general. I wouldn't disparage it or make recommendations other than ask Kaiser for help. But you have no problem suggesting that the Sand Springs dam be as big as possible to make sure that water is available for the downstream impoundments even though I doubt you have ever been on the upper stretches of the river to see the ecological destruction it will cause, the habitats it will change, the wildlife it will impact. Just so you can have a pretty canvas as a background for Jenks development. Think about it.

And don't talk naughty anymore...

If we are going for economical ways to spruce up the community, the river dams are a really dumb way of doing it. Public art is also a huge waste of resources from an economical perspective. For the art budget of the BOk Center we could have painted tons of overpasses to look pretty. Done fake brick medians on several streets and horde of other economical projects.

But sometimes, the most economical is not the best choice. If we spend $60,000,000 on dams and locks would only cost only a little additional - we'd be fools not to find a way to fund them. I don't know the practicality of it (2025 knows his stuff, I didn't believe him previously and looked the things he was saying up and he is nuts on), but if it is really a simple matter it would sure be fun to sail from Keystone to River Walk.

Certainly worth looking in to. If, as 2025 suggested, it is simply not practical or the effect will be very limited. Then don't bother.

But, in any event - I'd love to see better river access. Let me get out there in my flat bottom boat and toss a rod. Maybe a ferry for Oktoberfest. Paddle boat rental. SOMETHING!

Again, I'm not sure what is possible. But we are spending well over $100,000,000.00 on the dams, river trails, and renovating river parks... I think trying to utilize the actual river for something other than scenery at those prices is a wise move.

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

I am pessimistic about any development of boating uses on the river. First off I don't relish private users docking their powerboats on it. We don't have the mentality for that kind of use. We don't have the administrative infrastructure. Issues of policing, licensing, safety, ecology, pollution, testing, even ownership of the river remain unresolved. As long as its easier and cheaper to ignore its usage thats what will happen. Human powered craft, perhaps, but as long as landlubber attitudes prevail here there will be no development of water activities.

Ask an engineer Artist. The cost must not be too prohibitive as OKC and tons of other communities have provided them. Of course they may not have as many bathrooms I guess. How much MORE will it cost for bathrooms, bleachers and volleyball courts? You know, those amenities so in demand by the homeless and deviates they attract?[;)] We can put bathrooms, bleachers and v-ball courts in any park in Tulsa, why is it so important along the river when all the great new shopping, casinos and restaurant/bars will provide them?

We both know you don't particularly care for water activities. Your remarks are akin to me asking why we spend so much public money on art museums and theatre cause so few of us visit them. This may not be your thread to comment on.

There isnt going to be any shopping or casinos at the 71st Vball courts. Those courts are used all the time, just about every day in the spring and summer there are people out there using them. On busy days it easily numbers in the hundreds. When I used to get weekly teams started with friends (havent been able to this year with the project I am working on) my friends alone would take up to 4 nets, sometimes more, thats 8 teams of 6 plus people on the sidelines. Then there were always other groups out there to boot. Its probably one of the most used sections of the park, period. There are like 3 little picnic tables and a couple porta potties. They also have large events there like the Sand Blazer Volley Ball Tournaments. BTW I bet more people use the Vball courts there, and the art museums and theaters, than use those boats. The number of people in town that will use those things per dollar, is much better than the number of people who would use the locks per dollar. You would get a lot more bang for your buck, a lot more people using the Vball facilities, and appreciating it, than would use the locks, especially dollar per dollar. For 1 million you could probably get some great vball facilities which would serve more people than 4 or 5 million would for locks. Your always crying and *****ing about what you want, what you think is soooo important and expecting everyone to "jump on board", yet you dont give a crap and think as being stupid what others want or their opinions on the matter.

Well I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Maybe not. Your remarks are just surprising to me. Yeah, Sand Volleyball...its hot. Everyone's doing it. We can't build those courts fast enough. Maybe you could talk Kaiser into giving you guys some real bathrooms and showers.

Here's a little insight. I talk about what I know something about, am passionate about and I can gain enjoyment from enlightening others about. There are many threads I don't participate in because of the lack of one or more of those elements. It keeps me from comparing sand volleyball to river development issues. When I err in that general principal it doesn't take long for someone to make it clear to me.

BTW, I didn't start this thread nor was I the first to note how shortsighted building dams without provision for interconnectability is.

edit: I've played sand volleyball and I love volleyball in general. I wouldn't disparage it or make recommendations other than ask Kaiser for help. But you have no problem suggesting that the Sand Springs dam be as big as possible to make sure that water is available for the downstream impoundments even though I doubt you have ever been on the upper stretches of the river to see the ecological destruction it will cause, the habitats it will change, the wildlife it will impact. Just so you can have a pretty canvas as a background for Jenks development. Think about it.

And don't talk naughty anymore...

Hey, I could care less about a dam in Jenks. Like I have pointed out, that new development there isnt even facing the river anyway. Nobody going to it will be paying a bit of attention to the river. It wont be any more noticed or any more of a backdrop than the power plant will be. The larger dam in Sand Springs sounded good IF we were going to do a dam in Jenks because it would help it from not stagnating and it would help keep water flowing more often regardless of whether there is a dam in Jenks or not. Heck at this point if you say its bad to have the higher dam in Sand Springs, lets save the money and not do it then, and lets not do the one in Jenks either.

And btw, would rather not have Kaiser do anything around 71st. In the last river plan the area he was wanting to do there he had completely eliminated the Volley Ball courts.

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

The only costs I could find for the Oklahoma River dams were estimates from back in 2001 thru 2004. They budgeted 53 million dollars. The locks were based on the same system as the Panama Canal. That's 53 million for the entire 7 mile stretch with three dams and two locks including paths and connectors. There was no controversy over the inclusion of the locks. They were made expressly for river taxis which Devon oil promptly provided. I guess they didn't know about sand volleyball. They went with the boat thing.

The fact that this thread has taken a turn towards an EITHER/OR proposition between sand volleyball courts or making our inland river a navigable waterway is almost enough to make me spit out my drink!

By opening up the river to small boats and ferries to be able to transport customers (or just family) up and down the river would be TREMENDOUS. We're not as land loving as you all might think. Plenty of folks I know would welcome the invitation to responsibly enjoy our native river by boat. To me, it's a no brainer to include locks in the design. To not include them, is essentially confirming that all we're interested in is LOOKING at the river! What a waste!!

As far as volleyball goes...lol...sorry have to laugh under my breath a little as I type...those courts could be made into something very special with just a small donation from Kaiser or ONEOK or somebody. It's not an entirely un-noble cause (is that a real word?), but it can be done for MUCH MUCH cheaper and it certainly wouldn't have nearly the impact on quality of life or development that the locks could potentially create. Not to mention the real vision that it would show.

I've played volleyball down at those courts before and I do enjoy the courts. I think they could definitely be improved. I think it would even be neat to see someone invest a little bit of money in creating a sand volleyball complex along the river somewhere that had fixed seating and the potential to attract AVP Tour events. Tulsa's river parks setting would be IDEAL for something like that.

Ok, I am staaaarting to be convinced a little on the lock thing. Cannon makes a good point when he says that if your spending this much, a comparatively tiny amount more to add locks...

Guess I am really trying to get what people are envisioning for the river, just what people will or can use it for.

As a mode of mass transportation.... dont think thats gonna work. Yet when Waterboy mentions the locks, ya hear someone say something about just that, "wouldnt it be nice to take a ferry from Jenks to Downtown Tulsa or Sand Springs".

Recreationally, I just keep envisioning us building these locks, then rarely seeing but a few boats on the river. There is water in zink lake but how often do you see anything there? We have had good flow and lots of water in a large part of the river this whole year, I havent seen a single boat in it. In other words, though its a small expense comparatively, its still millions for only a few boats every now and then.

Is it just illegal to do now? Will that change if the dams are built?

Is it just flowing too much now? Will the dams make it feel like its flowing less quickly so that during high water and low water times people will be able to use it more?

Where would these docks be? Who will own them? Will they be on city or park property?

Perhaps I am just seeing things as they are now and trying to extrapolate from that. I could see how it could work with the docks and boats with the living etc on the "island" thing. But I am not seeing how it could work if you take what we have now "parks on either side, developments that either arent really river centric or do not and arent likely to have docks,,,, and add dams and locks?

Whats the whole vision here lol? How would this, lots of people boating on the river thing, work and look with the type and height of dams they are considering building, plus locks?

quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

Ok, I am staaaarting to be convinced a little on the lock thing. Cannon makes a good point when he says that if your spending this much, a comparatively tiny amount more to add locks...

Guess I am really trying to get what people are envisioning for the river, just what people will or can use it for.

As a mode of mass transportation.... dont think thats gonna work. Yet when Waterboy mentions the locks, ya hear someone say something about just that, "wouldnt it be nice to take a ferry from Jenks to Downtown Tulsa or Sand Springs".

Recreationally, I just keep envisioning us building these locks, then rarely seeing but a few boats on the river. There is water in zink lake but how often do you see anything there? We have had good flow and lots of water in a large part of the river this whole year, I havent seen a single boat in it. In other words, though its a small expense comparatively, its still millions for only a few boats every now and then.

Is it just illegal to do now? Will that change if the dams are built?

Is it just flowing too much now? Will the dams make it feel like its flowing less quickly so that during high water and low water times people will be able to use it more?

Where would these docks be? Who will own them? Will they be on city or park property?

Perhaps I am just seeing things as they are now and trying to extrapolate from that. I could see how it could work with the docks and boats with the living etc on the "island" thing. But I am not seeing how it could work if you take what we have now "parks on either side, developments that either arent really river centric or do not and arent likely to have docks,,,, and add dams and locks?

Whats the whole vision here lol? How would this, lots of people boating on the river thing, work and look with the type and height of dams they are considering building, plus locks?

The infrastructure isn't currently in place for boating on the river except for rowing on Zink Lake (and you'll see them almost everyday) and kayaking the Tulsa Wave by PSO. There isn't a marina, docks, etc. and Zink Lake is only so big. If there were several Zink Lakes though from Bixby to Sand Springs, which is what we're essentially creating with the low water dams, then with locks it would be possible to go from one "lake" to the next. If that was the case I would assume then it would be practical to develop boating and the infrastructure that goes with it. OKC doesn't have many boats in their river right now but they may in the future. The same can be said for Tulsa, you can't always think in the NOW you have to think 10-20-30 years down the road...

I just think it could be another fun activity to do in this town, either owning your own boat and cruising down the river or renting a boat or taking a ferry. It would really go a long way in changing people's perception of the river and bring them closer to it, more so than riverbank development ever would.

People do put boats on the river. I see kayakers, canoes, inflatables and even jon boats but I spend more time around the upper regions. Doubt there is much boating below I-44 because frankly no one knows they can or how to do it.

Ok, consider you have a power boat Artist. Where do you put it in on the Arkansas River in Tulsa? At Zink Lake? Big sign...no motorboats. It is misleading because that only applies from 11th to the lowater dam. Even then, does that preclude electric powered boats or just fueled boats? RPA has taken the most restrictive view and ruled electrics are motors as well. Most people only see the "no boats" part and assume only the rowing crew has permission to use the river. Not true. If your HPV (human powered vehicle) is registered with the state and has its numbers displayed you can put in on public property where you please. That is not conjecture, that is from my experience of operating three summers on the river.

The river is overseen by the state, the county, the city, the levee district and RPA. RPA is an authority and thus immune to oversight by anyone but its own board. Like the way our boards are operating at the fairgrounds and airport? Same process. IOW a cluster***k that by default keeps people other than who RPA deigns worthy from using it.

The issue is one of control. The communities along the river are open to lawsuit should they allow or promote usage without providing the same protections enjoyed at a public park. They don't want to do that so they make it difficult, even so far as to instill fear of it. Signs are posted warning of swimming in the river. Not because it has proven to be toxic. From recent testing THE ILLINOIS river is the most polluted river in the state yet has intense usage. All natural bodies of water have potentially dangerous bacteria. The signs merely point out that the river is not routinely tested and has no protected and lifeguarded areas for swimming. It is designed to reduce usage and lawsuit exposure.

Would you go upstream to put in? Where? Authorities control the river through restricted access. None of the expected infrastructure exists on the river now. No ports. No docks. No picnic sites. No swimming. No commercial entities you would find at the lake. There are four boat ramps well hidden on the river. Two of them are restricted by RPA, one is even gated and locked. So why are you surprised that there is little visible usage?

I wish you would stop referring to ferries and excursions as "mass" transit on the river. That is inaccurate and misleading. It puts entertainment in league with MTA and rail which it cannot and would not compete with. You don't need anyone here to instill a vision of what using the river might be like. You have posted plenty of pics of developed rivers from around the world. Hard to believe you can't see the potential here. Like V2025 said, the best vision was the living river concept that would have stretched downstream from Zink Lake to the Jenks pond.

There are tons of issues that aren't being faced because of our negative attitudes towards public taxation and the lethargic nature of the entities controlling access to the river. We should be embarrassed that our Cowboy neighbors up the pike addressed those issues.

quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

I think the water quality must have improved. We haven't had another case of Group A streptococcus flesh eating bacteria in a couple of years.

I haven't seen a report but I assume that Naegleria fowleri is still present in the Arkansas River, so you should avoid getting the water in your nose or mouth, and they still have a secondary contact warning that recommends that skin contact be held to a minimum.

The lead content, mostly contained in the silt though it is still high enough to kill some sensitive creatures (swans), and you shouldn't eat too many fish from the river.

I think boating and recreation on the river would be good for bringing the awareness of a great natural resource that we have squandered and neglected for too long. People will be more likely to clean up, and keep clean, a river that they do more than drive over.

I also think a lot of recreational commerce can be generated by useable urban water. The city really looks different when viewed from a boat on the river.

I agree with your summation but you fall into the fear trap. Where were those bacteria found on the river? At the storm sewer outlets? When? In August at low stream levels? Who did the testing? Are those bacteria found in other bodies of water?

Even the heavy metals report is suspect. The recent study of lakes and rivers statewide said the concentration of heavy metals in the Arkansas came from mining in Colorado near its source. Leadville. However, it neglects to say where the testing was made. Probably upstream before it travelled 900 miles through sandy riverbeds, three dams and two lakes. Merging with the Cimmaron and then the Verdigris. Lead, gold and silver really don't travel that well or there would be mining in Keystone lake.[;)]

If it serves to increase awareness of nationwide pollution of recreational waters I think its great. If it is done with the same mindset as tomato salmonella alerts, its counterproductive.

Ok I am still confused here lol. On the one hand waterboy gets on to me for referring to ferries, then several other posters do. Then Vision2025 says the Jenks dam would only put water up to about 81st. But then several people comment about how nice it would be to take ferries or small boats from Sand Springs to Bixby. Then someone also mentions that gas powered and electrical powered motor boats arent allowed to be in some parts of the river. etc.

by bacjz00

"" By opening up the river to small boats and ferries to be able to transport customers (or just family) up and down the river would be TREMENDOUS. ""

by SXSW

""There isn't a marina, docks, etc. and Zink Lake is only so big. If there were several Zink Lakes though from Bixby to Sand Springs, which is what we're essentially creating with the low water dams, then with locks it would be possible to go from one "lake" to the next.""

As for those pics of other cities with rivers and river development. Not one ever showed a boat on the river that I recall. Nor a dock. The development was usually in an urban area with buildings and streets right up to the river like in Central Paris, London, Rome etc. The only boats your likely to see in Central Paris or London are large tourist boats. Hardly the kind your going to be able to get on our river with the small dams we are considering building.

Again, what is the "vision"?

Will boats be able to go from Sand Springs to Jenks?

What kinds of boats and size and in which areas?

I keep seeing one comment then a post or two later see one that seems completely contradictory to the previous posts about what people would be able to do. So apparently I am not the only one potentially misunderstanding what the situation is.

If you had a typical, small family sized motorboat, with the size of dams being built and locks on them, would they be able to go from Sand Springs to Jenks in it? for instance.

I just want a clear picture so that everyone knows exactly what we are talking about.

quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

Will boats be able to go from Sand Springs to Jenks?

What kinds of boats and size and in which areas?

If you had a typical, small family sized motorboat, with the size of dams being built and locks on them, would they be able to go from Sand Springs to Jenks in it? for instance.

I just want a clear picture so that everyone knows exactly what we are talking about.

I cut to just your boat questions, hope that did not change the meaning.

I will answer your question as best that I can, if that does not work I would be glad to arrange a meeting as I have with others.

With dams spaced out at intervals (as required for various issues) as included in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan it will not be possible to take your basic family boat and run up and down the river from lake to lake. Reason - in between the lakes the water depth is not sufficient for the safe operation of a typical family boat running at plane.

At the dams, there will most likely be 'boatable flumes' which pass through the dams which will act as both fish passage and allow for white water activities but not the passage of motor boats. so, with these features in place it would be possible under the appropriate river flow conditions to go downstream in an appropriate craft form Keystone all the way to Jenks and beyond.

As I posted previously we are proposing scope items to conduct additional public meetings so that just such misconceptions and misunderstandings’ are reduced. In the mean time, if you are looking for a little light reading I would suggest the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan which is available on line at River documents (http://"http://www.incog.org/ark%20river/default.htm") 20river/default.htm[/url] I would suggest review. Phase one was the "vision Plan" which was (what I call) calumniation of all the brilliant ideas, at the time. The Phase two study is the report on what we can actually do. The TVA report is also available and includes a different perspective on the river prepared by that agency upon review of the other documents.

Hope that helps but likely not the answer you were looking for.

No, V-2025, Artist wants to make sure that my answers are proven incorrect even if others are misconstruing them and using "mass transit" terminology. Call them ferry boats, canal barges, patio boats, pontoons, whatever you wish Artist, just don't compare them with busses, trains and planes. They are tourist boats or "for hire" group boats, not a way to get to work.

From my point of view, flumes would be just fine for rafts, kayaks, canoes or other shallow draft non powered boats. If those are installed most of us will be happy. One could then start a trip at Keystone Dam and end up in the navigation channel if they wanted to.

A tourist boat is different. It was I, Artist, who pointed out that RPA does not allow powered boats on Zink lake. Even electrics. That rule would have to change to allow any motorboat. I assume they'll extend that to any new lakes. Its a control thing. But there are other designs for propelling boats that the family boat doesn't use. Hovers, airboats, or jet drives mated with shallow draft hulls like tunnels or step hulls. Some pontoons operate in only a foot of water. Though in some months the areas in between would be inaccessible by traditional powerboats, these types could operate.

Is it inconceivable to believe that a tourist entertainment boat could operate as conditions allow? If that means 75% of the year and nearly 90% in the pm hours isn't that conceivable? Pay attention. During the summer months the dams generate electricity from the Keystone Dam during the day. That generating water release takes 6-8 hours to reach Tulsa and Jenks. So, starting around 2pm in the afternoon and peaking around 2am, the water level rises in the river sufficient to operate any kind of boat. Except, without some manner to breach the low water dams, they cannot make the trip from Sand Springs to Jenks. I could have operated with a cabin cruiser on this river this last spring until today and been just fine as long as I never crossed the Zink dam.

I'll make this prediction now. There will be a tourist boat on each of the small lakes formed. The only one to turn a profit will be the Jenks boat and it will be subsidized by the casino, shopping areas and the city. The other two will fade away. All other fuel powered boats will be prohibited. Any boat allowed on the river other than the rowing crew support boats will be required to create no wake which means....no boats.

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

No, V-2025, Artist wants to make sure that my answers are proven incorrect even if others are misconstruing them and using "mass transit" terminology. Call them ferry boats, canal barges, patio boats, pontoons, whatever you wish Artist, just don't compare them with busses, trains and planes. They are tourist boats or "for hire" group boats, not a way to get to work.

From my point of view, flumes would be just fine for rafts, kayaks, canoes or other shallow draft non powered boats. If those are installed most of us will be happy. One could then start a trip at Keystone Dam and end up in the navigation channel if they wanted to.

A tourist boat is different. It was I, Artist, who pointed out that RPA does not allow powered boats on Zink lake. Even electrics. That rule would have to change to allow any motorboat. I assume they'll extend that to any new lakes. Its a control thing. But there are other designs for propelling boats that the family boat doesn't use. Hovers, airboats, or jet drives mated with shallow draft hulls like tunnels or step hulls. Some pontoons operate in only a foot of water. Though in some months the areas in between would be inaccessible by traditional powerboats, these types could operate.

Is it inconceivable to believe that a tourist entertainment boat could operate as conditions allow? If that means 75% of the year and nearly 90% in the pm hours isn't that conceivable? Pay attention. During the summer months the dams generate electricity from the Keystone Dam during the day. That generating water release takes 6-8 hours to reach Tulsa and Jenks. So, starting around 2pm in the afternoon and peaking around 2am, the water level rises in the river sufficient to operate any kind of boat. Except, without some manner to breach the low water dams, they cannot make the trip from Sand Springs to Jenks. I could have operated with a cabin cruiser on this river this last spring until today and been just fine as long as I never crossed the Zink dam.

I'll make this prediction now. There will be a tourist boat on each of the small lakes formed. The only one to turn a profit will be the Jenks boat and it will be subsidized by the casino, shopping areas and the city. The other two will fade away. All other fuel powered boats will be prohibited. Any boat allowed on the river other than the rowing crew support boats will be required to create no wake which means....no boats.

That is a shame. I understand there are difficulties but it seems the potential benefits would outweigh the costs. Here we have the opportunity to create something unique in Tulsa, a string of navigable urban lakes through the city, but can't do it without one thing: locks on the dams. Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture here but it just seems really short-sighted not to do it. If we want a river to just look at, fine then just build the dams as is and be done with it. But if we want to actually create a destination with our river, create something unique and interesting, then we need to look at this matter closer and decide what we want the river to be...

I have this feeling those in control of the river, and the general Tulsa public, don't know much about rivers and certainly don't appreciate the Arkansas. This is evident when the wastewater treatment facility is constructed along its banks and new development is allowed on the banks in south Tulsa that doesn't even face the water. I think it would be wise to listen to people like waterboy who know the river but also to hear from those who know other similar rivers and live/work in river cities where they care about it/use it. People from Louisville, Omaha, Chattanooga, Pittsburgh, Shreveport, our Arkansas River sister cities Fort Smith and Little Rock, etc. Tulsa is not considered by many to be a "river city" even though we are on one of the longest rivers in North America. Until the attitude changes and we either decide to USE the river or just look at it/not utilize it we will never be considered one, which like I said is a shame because it could be different...

/Rant Over

quote:
Originally posted by SXSW

quote:
Originally posted by waterboy

No, V-2025, Artist wants to make sure that my answers are proven incorrect even if others are misconstruing them and using "mass transit" terminology. Call them ferry boats, canal barges, patio boats, pontoons, whatever you wish Artist, just don't compare them with busses, trains and planes. They are tourist boats or "for hire" group boats, not a way to get to work.

From my point of view, flumes would be just fine for rafts, kayaks, canoes or other shallow draft non powered boats. If those are installed most of us will be happy. One could then start a trip at Keystone Dam and end up in the navigation channel if they wanted to.

A tourist boat is different. It was I, Artist, who pointed out that RPA does not allow powered boats on Zink lake. Even electrics. That rule would have to change to allow any motorboat. I assume they'll extend that to any new lakes. Its a control thing. But there are other designs for propelling boats that the family boat doesn't use. Hovers, airboats, or jet drives mated with shallow draft hulls like tunnels or step hulls. Some pontoons operate in only a foot of water. Though in some months the areas in between would be inaccessible by traditional powerboats, these types could operate.

Is it inconceivable to believe that a tourist entertainment boat could operate as conditions allow? If that means 75% of the year and nearly 90% in the pm hours isn't that conceivable? Pay attention. During the summer months the dams generate electricity from the Keystone Dam during the day. That generating water release takes 6-8 hours to reach Tulsa and Jenks. So, starting around 2pm in the afternoon and peaking around 2am, the water level rises in the river sufficient to operate any kind of boat. Except, without some manner to breach the low water dams, they cannot make the trip from Sand Springs to Jenks. I could have operated with a cabin cruiser on this river this last spring until today and been just fine as long as I never crossed the Zink dam.

I'll make this prediction now. There will be a tourist boat on each of the small lakes formed. The only one to turn a profit will be the Jenks boat and it will be subsidized by the casino, shopping areas and the city. The other two will fade away. All other fuel powered boats will be prohibited. Any boat allowed on the river other than the rowing crew support boats will be required to create no wake which means....no boats.

That is a shame. I understand there are difficulties but it seems the potential benefits would outweigh the costs. Here we have the opportunity to create something unique in Tulsa, a string of navigable urban lakes through the city, but can't do it without one thing: locks on the dams. Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture here but it just seems really short-sighted not to do it. If we want a river to just look at, fine then just build the dams as is and be done with it. But if we want to actually create a destination with our river, create something unique and interesting, then we need to look at this matter closer and decide what we want the river to be...

I have this feeling those in control of the river, and the general Tulsa public, don't know much about rivers and certainly don't appreciate the Arkansas. This is evident when the wastewater treatment facility is constructed along its banks and new development is allowed on the banks in south Tulsa that doesn't even face the water. I think it would be wise to listen to people like waterboy who know the river but also to hear from those who know other similar rivers and live/work in river cities where they care about it/use it. People from Louisville, Omaha, Chattanooga, Pittsburgh, Shreveport, our Arkansas River sister cities Fort Smith and Little Rock, etc. Tulsa is not considered by many to be a "river city" even though we are on one of the longest rivers in North America. Until the attitude changes and we either decide to USE the river or just look at it/not utilize it we will never be considered one, which like I said is a shame because it could be different...

/Rant Over

I dont think its just the locks, its the height of the dams as well. I think waterboy is right that the one area that will for sure have a small "touristy" type ferry boat will be the Jenks area. But SXSW you have to realize the dam there will only put water only so far up the river, there will be several miles that will remain just as they are now, high running water sometimes, low to almost empty sometimes. It would take one BIG dam to get a lake that goes from Jenks all the way to Zink Lake. You can still use hover boats to go upstream and smaller boats to go downstream but if the dams have the flumes that could work instead of the locks in this instance since it seems to me that the kind of boats you would use a lock for to go upstream in, would also need more water in the river between where the Sand Springs lake ends and Zink lake begins.

Quote from: Townsend on September 25, 2012, 02:49:09 pm

TW FB post:

Yeah, not really "hammered out" as the 4pm update headline suggests:

Quote

Funding agreement reached on south Tulsa dam

Tulsa, Jenks and Muscogee (Creek) Nation reached a funding agreement Tuesday to build a $60 million south Tulsa dam, officials told the Tulsa World.

Tulsa’s $30 million share of the cost would come from its $158 million quality-of-life allocation from the proposed Tulsa County Vision2 package, if it’s approved by voters Nov. 6, Council Chairman G.T. Bynum said.

The City Council’s draft Vision2 projects list includes $71 millions for dams, including $41 million to improve the Zink Dam and $30 million on the south Tulsa dam partnership.

Councilors are holding a public hearing tonight at 6 p.m. at City Hall and another at 6 p.m. Thursday before they finalize the list with a council vote following the second public hearing.

Jenks and Creek Nation officials haven’t yet agreed on how to split their $30 million share of the cost, Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland said.

Jenks has at least two possible funding options: its potential $9.2 million Vision2 quality-of-life share and tax increment financing, Vreeland said.

Creek Nation officials weren’t immediately available for comment.

The tribe operates the River Spirit Casino on the east side of the river and bought the RiverWalk Crossing shopping, entertainment and dining center in Jenks on the west side of the river earlier this year.

If Vision2 passes, Bynum said, it will provide “an opportunity for an unprecedented collaborative effort” between the three entities.

“I’m encourage by the fact that no matter who you talk to ... everyone agrees that building those dams will be a transformative event for this whole region - particularly for the city of Tulsa, the city of Jenks and the Creek Nation.”

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20120925_334_0_Tlaekn180013

Sounds like someone at the Whirled is a bit overly optimistic.

The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => Development & New Businesses => Topic started by: sgrizzle on July 03, 2008, 08:39:00 pm