I was interested in the argument that said we can't do anything to the river because the levees are bad.
1. GT pointed out there is a Levee authority tasked with maintaining those levees and they have tons of money.
2. GT also stated the new plan offers more control over water levels than the current one.
I thought he said the district has been saving funds, but has on the order of $1.2 million in reserves. While significant money for me, that's nothing when redoing levees. There are 20 miles of levees that need upwards of $30,000,000 in improvements. So the people/business that live in that area would have to pony up (they currently pay something like 12 a year). The tax levee (get it?) could be increased by a vote of the County Commissioners.
Not sure how much the increase would actually be., but I can see the objection of the owners in that area. For instance, Ark Wrecking stands to gain nothing by having more water on the other side of the levee...
Some other interesting notes
1. Our river is largely like it is now due to the keystone dam, poor zink dam design and once daily water releases
2. The Sand Springs dam is most important as it is being used to change the nightly releases into a more continuous water flow downstream.
3. While the dam would create lakes the only extend roughly a couple of miles upstream, the rest of the river would look more like it's pre-keystone self, with a more steady flow of water.
4. The plan is to include a maintenance endowment to fund the maintenance.
The plan itself seems very well reasoned. The drop down gates to get rid of silt and sand. The way to handle wildlife. The constant flow design. All of that seems great.
What was not addressed at all is the cost to benefit.
I asked how much private land there is that can be developed along the river. The response was regarding total shoreline. I have previously done an analysis and the amount of land that is truly available to develop isn't very much. We would be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to add water to the river for each acre of development we hope to obtain.
It would be a huge benefit to the Creek Nation, who kinda sorta maybe said they might think about paying something but aren't obligated to. They get water for their new casino, river walk, and other new developments. I would whole heatedly support them building a dam along there to help make their properties look better. But given the very limited development potential for private enterprise in that area - it seems to be a crappy return on investment to me.
The Sand Springs reservoir area is likewise nearly devoid of development opportunity.
The section in Tulsa is well hemmed in by Riverparks. Yes, I know developers want to "work with the public" to develop portions of it, and I'm sure some compromises can be made, but overall this is a HUGE chunk of change to decide we will go ahead and build it and then decide how much park land we will give to developers.
For $300,000,000 or $400,000,000 couldn't we buy Keystone Dam, or otherwise bribe the Corp to shut down or alter the generator station so we could use the reservoir there to have a consistent flow in the river? I get that it wouldn't be as pretty as a series of slow flowing lakes, but wow.
I would like water in the river simply for looks. But at that price tag I just don't see the reward.