A Critical Look at the Proposed Arkansas River Infrastructure Development

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

Smart Growth Tulsa posts about this: http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/blog/

NPR story http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/dam-disagreements-arguments-against-proposed-arkansas-river-infrastructure-development

Our guest today on ST is Bill Leighty, executive director of the Smart Growth Tulsa Coalition, which was founded in 2014 as an organization "committed to creating healthy communities that work for everyone with strong schools, shops, and local businesses, improved mobility options, and jobs that pay well." A longtime Tulsa-based realtor and businessman who's been consistently active in community and professional development, and who has served on the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission as well as the city's Transportation Advisory Board, Leighty has become an outspoken critic in recent days -- please see his blog posts here -- of the Tulsa City Council's draft proposal for Arkansas River infrastructure development. (G.T. Bynum, the City Councilor who's leading the effort on this draft proposal, appeared on our show recently to discuss the same.) Also, please note that two further public meetings will be held on the issue of proposed river-infrastructure development here in Tulsa next week, on Monday the 29th as well as Wednesday the 1st, and you can get all the details on those meetings by going here and looking for the "Town Hall Meeting Schedule."

[cannon_fodder]

The more I look into this, the more it is a HORRIBLE investment by Tulsa. Tulsa's share will be $200mil to $300mil, depending on where the final price ends up. FOr that, we get nearly NO development potential. Seriously, the number may be ZERO acres.

1) The south dam IS zero for Tulsa.

2) The "Jenks Dam" will create a lake from just south of the Creek to 81st, with some trailing off perhaps up the east bank to 71st St.

That incorporates a bunch of land in Jenks, a ton of creek nation land, and maybe a few acres right next to Jones Riverside Airport. The trickle up the east bank to 71st would get you a mile of partial water frontage which is Riverparks land and/or already being developed into big-box retail NOT FACING THE RIVER. The west side of the river, which will not have water in it from 71st to 81st, is City land which could be available for development (currently a maintenance dumb of some kind?). But again... the water is trailing off and is only on the east bank.

So really, we gain no land there.

3) Zink Dam

I love the plans for this. It raises the water level 3', but adds whiz bang recreation areas, white water features, waterfalls, a recreational island. I assume there will be a bait and switch "redesign" to save money, but it is damn nice on the current plans.

I am in favor of doing the Zink Dam aspect, because it compliments the gathering place and because Zink dam needs to be replaced.

However, don't tell me it is for "development" purposes. Adding 3' to the lake backs it up to approximately 49th W. Ave. Basically, it backs it up to Prairie's brewery. That expands the pool to include more refinery space and some flood plain (literally inside the levy system). The north (later east) bank is undeveloped flood plain with 4x4 tracks and woods. The south (later west) bank is all refinery until you get to the small industrial complex that is Prairie and another small shop.  Maybe 20 acres in there inside the levy that could be developed (can it?)?

- - - -

I can't see how this can spur development. I understand that we will have a constant trickle thanks to the upstream Sandsprings dam, but what land are we going to develop? Refinery? Riverparks? Creek Nation land?

[ZYX]

Is there a way we could go about making each item an individual vote on the ballot? Or at least separate the "water in the river" vote from the rest?

I will likely vote against anything that includes dam building (other than Zink dam improvements). It's frustrating that building dams will likely be tied to any other good ideas that could actually help move the city forward.

[Conan71]

Tulsa needs to focus on the Zink dam only and let Sand Springs, Bixby, and the Creeks/Jenks do their own funding if they want LWD’s rather than doing this as a regional proposal.  I’m interested to see where Blake and Anna’s economic development package goes before I’ll consider a regional tax package for dams.

Based on what the consensus seems to be, I don’t think the dam proposal will pass so this may all be a moot point.

[swake]

Tulsa needs to focus on the Zink dam only and let Sand Springs, Bixby, and the Creeks/Jenks do their own funding if they want LWD’s rather than doing this as a regional proposal.  I’m interested to see where Blake and Anna’s economic development package goes before I’ll consider a regional tax package for dams.

Based on what the consensus seems to be, I don’t think the dam proposal will pass so this may all be a moot point.

The Sand Springs dam feeds the other dams. It's required. Bixby and Jenks are not.

[carltonplace]

Tulsa needs to focus on the Zink dam only and let Sand Springs, Bixby, and the Creeks/Jenks do their own funding if they want LWD’s rather than doing this as a regional proposal.  I’m interested to see where Blake and Anna’s economic development package goes before I’ll consider a regional tax package for dams.

Based on what the consensus seems to be, I don’t think the dam proposal will pass so this may all be a moot point.

Winner

[TeeDub]

The Sand Springs dam feeds the other dams. It's required. Bixby and Jenks are not.

Why is the Sand Springs dam required?    Does Zink lake go empty now even though it is the only one?

[Conan71]

Why is the Sand Springs dam required?    Does Zink lake go empty now even though it is the only one?

It has been due to gate problems.  I’m not a hydrologist, so I really can’t speak intelligently on whether or not the SS dam is really necessary to keep Zink full at either it’s present level or if the gate height were raised on a revamp.

[swake]

It has been due to gate problems.  I’m not a hydrologist, so I really can’t speak intelligently on whether or not the SS dam is really necessary to keep Zink full at either it’s present level or if the gate height were raised on a revamp.

It's also to keep the potential white water features working south of the Zink dam and leave the rest of the undammed river with a decent amount of water all the time instead of empty when Keystone is closed and flowing when Keystone is open and generating electricity.

[TeeDub]

It's also to keep the potential white water features working south of the Zink dam and leave the rest of the undammed river with a decent amount of water all the time instead of empty when Keystone is closed and flowing when Keystone is open and generating electricity.

Couldn't this be accomplished with having a gate that only opens the white water area from say dawn to dusk?   Wouldn't that save you the cost of the Sand Springs dam.

[swake]

Couldn't this be accomplished with having a gate that only opens the white water area from say dawn to dusk?   Wouldn't that save you the cost of the Sand Springs dam.

The gate at Keystone is mostly open during the day for power now. But that water takes hours to come down river. My understanding of the Sand Springs dam is to catch that water and impound it for an even release throughout the day for a more natural and even river flow.

The purpose of the Sand Springs dam is to give us a more natural river. The lower dams just give us little lakes along that more natural river.

[TeeDub]

So the Sand Springs dam will have the capability to open and close during the day so that it can impound water rather than just having the Zink dam do it?


Sounds like someone upstream bought a bunch of cheap river real estate and is trying to boondoggle taxpayers to make it valuable.

[Vision 2025]

With respect to the questions for why do we need the Sand Springs project in the mix I offer the following:

The proposed SS Dam is not proposed just keep the downstream lakes full (it's a river flow in = flow out - evaporation).  What the proposed SS facility intends to provide for is a proven methodology for the storage and reregulation of hydro-power flows in order to increase the volume during the regular intermittent low flow conditions which occur during the majority of the time.  So before the recent flood releases from Keystone the low flows were running between 100-300 cfs through Tulsa during the day, but if the SS dam was  in place and operating those flows would be increased to 800-1200 cfs (between hydro releases) with about 2.5-3 hours of hydro release (@ 12,000 cfs) being required to refill the re-regulation pool so that the facility would be able to provide flow augmentation again at the next low flow point between hydro releases which are typically either once per day (in the afternoon/evening) or at times twice per day (morning and evening), all for peak power generation.

Question:  What does flow augmentation provide for?  

1.  Greatly reduced low flow sags (which typically occur late at night to early morning, with dark being the worst condition for the corresponding DO sag to occur in from a water quality perspective) and increased low flow levels which is significantly beneficial to the aquatics in the River (the happier the aquatics are the better the River will look and be).

2.  To many, appearance enhancements with approximately 60-80% bottom coverage vs. 20-30% (depending on location).

3.  Flow available to the area for recreational use, for white water activities and events.

4.  Increased water quality and reduced risk by actually having low flows which approach the theoretical 7Q2 flows which are utilized for Waste Water discharge permitting.  (Remember, happy treatment plants and their receiving streams smell better and that challenged plants often have problems that few of us with a nose enjoy).

Question:  Is SS required for Zink to work:  

No but it is required for Zink to function as intended and to be significantly better, especially as it relates to the proposed white water features and water quality.
  
This approach to aquatic and recreational benefit was not dreamed up locally.  It was included in the original Congressional Authorization for Keystone Lake to provide for downstream water quality (which is why there is no authorized water quality storage in Keystone because they planned to recycle the water released for power generation).  In my opinion, the original re-reg. dam functioned poorly and was later removed because it was not properly designed for the conditions present at the site for (then) sand accumulation and most importantly it provided very unsafe public access.  During development of the Corridor Master Plan re-regulation was proposed and evaluated as the best alternative by the Tennessee Valley Authority whom was under a consultant/peer review contract with the USACE to review the Master Plan, they developed.

In closing, if you're not interested in flow augmentation for better water quality and recreational flows I would ask that once the current flood flows are over that you take a drive up the river to Keystone and take a good look at what the River bed looks like during low flow conditions where there is very little sand with bed rock and cobbles exposed and ask yourself if you like that look because with the new sand and silt for the most part being stopped by Keystone that scoured bottom condition is moving downstream to a view near you and flow augmentation will submerge much of it between the lakes a good deal of the time.

Thanks and remember your mileage may vary,

Kirby
  
  

[TeeDub]

Question:  Is SS required for Zink to work:  

No but it is required for Zink to function as intended and to be significantly better, especially as it relates to the proposed white water features and water quality.
  

So Zink water quality and the current white water features are/were neither acceptable nor functioning as intended.  

[rebound]

So Zink water quality and the current white water features are/were neither acceptable nor functioning as intended.  

No