The state house passed the bill to restore funding for Tulsa's dams. The bill is now on the way back to the state senate. The measure passed 55-38.
By my count the Tulsa metro area reps voted 18-3 to pass. The rest of the state outside the Oklahoma City metro also voted to pass, 21-17.
The majority of the votes against the dams were from the Oklahoma City area, they voted 18-6 against restoring Tulsa's share of the bond issue.
Why exactly should we support things like a basketball team or expanded rail service in Oklahoma City when Oklahoma City area legislators are the ones fighting against Tulsa on even getting it's share of funding on issues that have already been passed.
The votes:
Voting for the bill: Armes, R-Faxon; AuJet, D-Stilwell; Bailey, D-Broken Bow; Banz, RMidwest City; Benge, R-Tulsa; Billy, R-Lindsay; Blackwell, R-Goodwell; Brannon, D-Arkoma; Collins, D-Norman; Cox, R-Grove; DeWitt, R-Braman; Denney, R-Cushing; Derby, ROwasso; Dorman, D-Rush Springs; Fields, R-Wynonna; Hamilton, D-OKC; Hickman, R-Dacoma; Holland, R-Marlow; Jackson, REnid; Jett, R-Tecumseh; Jones, R-Claremore; Jordan, R-Jenks; Kiesel, D-Seminole; Kirby, R-Tulsa; Lamons, D-Tulsa; Liebmann, R-OKC; Martin, Steve, R-Bartlesville; McCullough, RSapulpa; McDaniel, Jeannie, D-Tulsa; McNiel, R-Bristow; Miller, R-Edmond; Osborn, R-Tuttle; Peters, R-Tulsa; Peterson, R-Tulsa; Proctor, D-Tulsa; Pruett, D-Antlers; Renegar, D-McAlester; Richardson, R-Minco; Sanders, R-Dover; Scott, D-Tulsa; Sears, R-Bartlesville; Shelton, D-OKC; Sherrer, D-Pryor Creek; Shoemake, D-Morris; Shumate, D-Tulsa; Smithson, D-Sallisaw; Steele, R-Shawnee; Sullivan, R-Tulsa; Terrill, R-Moore; Thomsen, R-Ada; Tibbs, R-Tulsa; Trebilcock, R-Broken Arrow;Walker, D-Elk City; Watson, R-Tulsa;Wright, Harold, R-Weatherford.
Voting against the bill: Brown, Mike, DTahlequah; Buck, D-Ardmore; Cannaday, D-Porum; Christian, R-OKC; Coody, R-Lawton; Cooksey, R-Edmond; Dank, R-OKC; Duncan, R-Sand Springs; Enns, R-Enid; Faught, R-Muskogee; Glenn, D-Miami; Harrison, D-McAlester; Inman, D-OKC; Joyner, R-Midwest City; Kern, R-OKC; Key, R-OKC; Kouplen, D-Beggs; Luttrell, D-Ponca City; Martin, Scott, R-Norman; McAJrey, D-OKC; McDaniel, Randy, R-Edmond; McMullen, D-Burns Flat; Moore, R-Arcadia; Morrissette, D-OKC; Murphey, R-Guthrie; Nelson, R-OKC; Ortega, R-Altus; Ownbey, R-Ardmore; Reynolds, Mike, R-OKC; Ritze, R-Broken Arrow; Roan, D-Tishomingo; Rousselot, D-Wagoner; Schwartz, R-Yukon; Shannon, R-Lawton; Thompson, R-OKC; Wesselhoft, R-Moore; Williams, D-Stillwater; Wright, John, R-Broken Arrow.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090410_16_A1_OKLAHO947934
personally I think that OKC is afraid of the competition if we get our heads above wanter and start moving on more lifestyle changes in Tulsa.
What I've heard from "old timers," and maybe folks can confirm, is that Tulsa has always been screwed by Oklahoma City. But when the oil boom was full force we didn't care as our citizens could pay for everything and provide enough jobs. When the economy crashed in the 1980's Oklahoma City was down worse than Tulsa was.
But now that Oklahoma City shares in any oil boom nearly as much as Tulsa, we suddenly care that we have gotten a bum wrap for a century. But it is SO ingrained in the mindset of Oklahoma City that all government jobs, services, and programs belong to them that the status quo is upheld. Philanthropists in Tulsa can pay for our arena and convention expansion if they want to, it isn't the States problem. But if the State wants to change a law to give $50,000,000 to an NBA franchise in OKC - it flies through.
New Museum for Oklahoma City? Absolutely.
Dams for Tulsa? Why can't you pay for that yourself?
Oklahoma City wants to move a freeway to make downtown? DONE.
Tulsa wants to repair grade F bridges, try to open others to emergency vehicles, and widen one of the busiest highways in the State? Maybe next decade (or 3).
QuoteWhy exactly should we support things like a basketball team or expanded rail service in Oklahoma City when Oklahoma City area legislators are the ones fighting against Tulsa on even getting it's share of funding on issues that have already been passed.
Portion out the hapless governmental jobs so Tulsa has a fair share of State employment, get rid of the toll road only policy around Tulsa, and toss Tulsa $50mil towards some frivolous entertainment and I'll pretend we are at par. From there on out each city can pay their own way. Since Tulsa is a net loser in State tax money, I doubt they'd find pay-your own way a good proposal and Oklahoma City will continue to milk all the government jobs, subsidies, and infrastructure they can.
I don't really have a problem with government jobs being in the state capital. That's sort of how it works. I do have a problem with them expecting us to pay for their NBA team and their highway relocation and whatever else and then having to fight like hell to get funding for anything we want money for, or to be told that linking the state's two largest metro areas by rail is less important than rail to southern Kansas.
I'm almost at the point of saying screw 'em. Let's build high speed rail to Springfield, Fayetteville, Kansas City, and even Fort Smith. Why make it easier for Tulsans to spend money in OKC? Since apparently they don't want it, let's just bypass the morons and make it easier for surrounding areas to spend money here (and for us to go elsewhere).
I don't really have a problem with the net state tax drain per se, as long as it's mostly going to the rural areas, rather than OKC, which it sadly doesn't appear to be.
Or we could just become our own state, although I don't really like the name Sequoyah.
dam them! ;D
Seriously, though, many OKCers actively despise Tulsa and any of its efforts to improve things. They're rather obsessed--still--with comparing the two towns and making sure OKC is superior. Even the ones who live here find ways to belittle Tulsa.
http://www.okctalk.com/tulsa-suburbs/17364-tulsa-outdoing-us-2.html#post214019
QuoteTulsa is increasingly becoming a secondary city within Oklahoma, playing on the same stage with the Springfields and Wichitas.
Quote from: Floyd on April 10, 2009, 02:39:01 PM
http://www.okctalk.com/tulsa-suburbs/17364-tulsa-outdoing-us-2.html#post214019
Wow, that quote was ridiculous. They obviously think more highly of themselves than they rate. If Tulsa is a Springfield or Wichita, what does that make OKC? Pueblo?
It is interesting to note that a Sand Springs legislator and a Broken Arrow rep voted against the measure. If they feel strongly about it they should explain why. Especially the SS rep whose city presumably would receive benefit. Perhaps he doesn't feel that in reality SS will ever get a dam in his lifetime or be able to make use of one if they do? If so, I agree. And the result of that will be a failed dam in Jenks. Is it possible something else is slowing the progress? Maybe our case is not being presented strongly enough? Or the case is weaker than some feel? The issues of connectability, ecology and ongoing maintenance, security and usage that I have brought forth over the last few years....have not been addressed in this proposal. People say they can be addressed, they can be utilized etc, but in my heart, I feel they won't be.
I do not feel this is an OKC vs Tulsa family feud. If the thinking above is not the reason for the negative votes, then this is just a manifestation of power. The rural areas swing a lot of clout and usually get their way. OKC swings a big club and gets their way. We don't. We also can't make very good alliances because of our location within the state. If Arkansas, Kansas and Missouri could vote with us WE would be a big dog with a snarl. Instead, we are impotent.
Quote from: nathanm on April 10, 2009, 02:18:38 PM
I don't really have a problem with government jobs being in the state capital. That's sort of how it works.
I understand that Nathan. It it the pervasiveness of it that is really annoying. Tulsans pay for SOOOOO many jobs in Oklahoma City. In many (most) states "secondary cities" are given a piece the the state jobs pie. Minneapolis/St. Paul, Milwaukee/Madison, I'm sure there are plenty more examples. To the best extent possible, state jobs are monopolized in Oklahoma City - not even lip service is done for sharing that wealth.
The problem is to such an extent we have to beg to get state funding for medical care (OSU Medical Center), police investigations (ME's office), State educational facilities (see 5 half-donkey [sorry] State University's in Tulsa instead of one full service State campus: Langston, NSU, Rogers, OSU-Tulsa, OU-Tulsa. Fine schools, but not on par with what most other cities our size offer in a State school), and many other core services. It's just annoying. At least PRETEND like you give a damn what the 1/3rd of the State that lives closer to Tulsa than OKC thinks.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 10, 2009, 03:19:22 PM
I understand that Nathan. It it the pervasiveness of it that is really annoying. Tulsans pay for SOOOOO many jobs in Oklahoma City. In many (most) states "secondary cities" are given a piece the the state jobs pie. Minneapolis/St. Paul, Milwaukee/Madison, I'm sure there are plenty more examples. To the best extent possible, state jobs are monopolized in Oklahoma City - not even lip service is done for sharing that wealth.
The problem is to such an extent we have to beg to get state funding for medical care (OSU Medical Center), police investigations (ME's office), State educational facilities (see 5 half-donkey [sorry] State University's in Tulsa instead of one full service State campus: Langston, NSU, Rogers, OSU-Tulsa, OU-Tulsa. Fine schools, but not on par with what most other cities our size offer in a State school), and many other core services. It's just annoying. At least PRETEND like you give a damn what the 1/3rd of the State that lives closer to Tulsa than OKC thinks.
Now, now.... Ken Neal and the boys make many trips to OKC for just this reason.
A few more years and
several more million in Tulsa tax dollars and they may have an idea for a partial solution to all this.
Gee. You guys make OKC sound like a better investment for quality living than here in Tulsa. Better funding for roads, schools, hospitals and bridges. Better funding for livability qualities like downtown housing, river development and entertainment. Easier to do business with. Easier to find employment. Why are we here again? :-\ The hills and greenery?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 10, 2009, 03:19:22 PM
The problem is to such an extent we have to beg to get state funding for medical care (OSU Medical Center), police investigations (ME's office), State educational facilities (see 5 half-donkey [sorry] State University's in Tulsa instead of one full service State campus: Langston, NSU, Rogers, OSU-Tulsa, OU-Tulsa. Fine schools, but not on par with what most other cities our size offer in a State school), and many other core services. It's just annoying. At least PRETEND like you give a damn what the 1/3rd of the State that lives closer to Tulsa than OKC thinks.
These complaints I agree with wholeheartedly.
They DO pretend to care. Then they cut us off at the knees. Its our reps who pretend to fight for us that bothers me. We have enough clout that with a few well placed alliances we could hinder OKC"s momentum and force them to consider our pet projects. Note that Tahlequah's representative also voted against the dam funding. No one asks why? Then there is no chance to build alliances. Northeast OK should be bargaining with what little power we have rather than whining about how OKC just doesn't keep our interests in mind.
Why would anyone else outside our area be interested in building a dam for one of Tulsa's ambitious burbs?
This is how it's supposed to work with Tulsa's legislators sticking together and rallying support from other areas (aside from OKC). OKC has borrowed lots of support from Tulsa in the past. I say F 'em from now on when they've got a major bill for state funding in the future.
Haven't seen any articles today...Did Henry sign the bill?
Quote from: Townsend on April 23, 2009, 10:53:40 AM
Haven't seen any articles today...Did Henry sign the bill?
Watch for the temperature to suddenly drop outside. If we get our money, it means hell has frozen over.
I grew up in Western OK and went to college at OU. I moved to Tulsa in 1969. Prior to moving to Tulsa, all of our TV and newspaper coverage came from OKC. At that time, I read the paper religiously and watched the news every evening. I never noticed any sense of competition between the two cities or heard anything negative about Tulsa while I lived in the OKC area. Immediately upon moving to Tulsa, I noticed the negative comments about Oklahoma City and the complaints about Tulsa being shortchanged by the legislature. IMO, if Tulsa has been shortchanged by the legislature it's because they haven't elected representatives that are very good at their jobs or were on the same page about what was best for Tulsa. It's always a game of give and take. "You vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours." If you don't play the game well, you aren't going to get cooperation from legislators who live outside your area.
MsProudSooner:
Generally, the entity getting the benefit of the game wouldn't complain. If Tulsa received jobs, projects, and funding from Oklahoma City I doubt we'd complain about it. Thus, one wouldn't expect to hear Oklahoma City complain about taking tax money from Tulsa for their purposes. Why would you?
But I agree with your general premise. Our legislative body doesn't seem to play the game well. For decades, as I understand it, it was because we didn't care. The oil industry propped us up enough that OKC could have all the governmental jobs, free roads, University Funding, public hospitals and whatever else they wanted from State money. Such is no longer the case and Tulsa is at a detriment from the lack of public health care, no true 4 year University, and no free roads leading to town.
- - -
The bill has apparently not been signed. It was sent to the Governor on the 21st but STILL doesn't even appear on the radar. 4/16/2009 was the last update apparently:
http://www.governor.state.ok.us/billtrack/index.php?sortby=rd
Waterboy has nailed most of the big issues here. Ms. Proud Sooner also hit the nail on the head.
Its natural for OKC to do its best to feather its nest. Competition between cities is natural and healthy.
Unfortunately what's missing here is leadership from Tulsa. And I truly do not understand it. The attorneys I work for here are among the brightest, most talented professionals I've ever come across, but our leadership in Tulsa has left them with a second rate market in which to ply their trade. It's not easy to make money in this town.
And OKC is now more of an oil town than we are. Boy did we ever mess up.
Owasso didn't help any in this go round either.
Having said that, I want to point out that I am happy Tulsa got something she asked but I believe the Arkansas River is more valuable to us in its natural (sandy bar) state and that creating unnatural lakes is not an improvement. I'd rather see us take the X number of Millions of Dollars and partner with the refineries to reduce toxic emmissions spewing out of that beautiful stretch of the river and build a number of municipal parking garages with free parking downtown.
But I'm just a practical person with the ability to make my dreams come true, over and over.
Quote from: MsProudSooner on April 23, 2009, 12:14:34 PM
I grew up in Western OK and went to college at OU. I moved to Tulsa in 1969. Prior to moving to Tulsa, all of our TV and newspaper coverage came from OKC. At that time, I read the paper religiously and watched the news every evening. I never noticed any sense of competition between the two cities or heard anything negative about Tulsa while I lived in the OKC area. Immediately upon moving to Tulsa, I noticed the negative comments about Oklahoma City and the complaints about Tulsa being shortchanged by the legislature. IMO, if Tulsa has been shortchanged by the legislature it's because they haven't elected representatives that are very good at their jobs or were on the same page about what was best for Tulsa. It's always a game of give and take. "You vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours." If you don't play the game well, you aren't going to get cooperation from legislators who live outside your area.
You know I have thought the same thing... Perhaps Tulsa must be messing up and doing something wrong. But always there is that nagging suspicion that perhaps OKC is giving us the shaft. That suspicion was proven correct in this case.
When the bill was passed, OKC got some Tulsa got some. But then it was ruled against by the judge. (OKC snagged their part real quick like before Tulsa did) One could say, well Tulsa should have paid attention and gotten a bill written that was correct. Still that nagging suspicion remained, but ya know, what can ya say. But then when Tulsas part of the bill went forward on its own and all the OKC people voted against it. That was proof right there imo. The will of the citizens and legislators of OKC was plain to be seen. They wanted to screw Tulsa plain and simple. They wanted to get their part, and not let Tulsa get theirs. EVEN though one of the reasons we had that dual bill going forth in the first place is because we complained about being screwed on a different thing earlier and OKC said, ok, lets let Tulsa get something, oh and do you mind,we are gonna throw on yet more for OKC. We said, ok, go ahead, we are just happy to finally be getting something. Then all this crap happens. They grab yet more, then vote against ours?! They wanted more and didnt want Tulsa to have any. Clear as day, plain and simple. How can you see it otherwise? They showed their true colors right there.
And Cannon is right. Of course people in OKC dont care or even have much of an idea of whats going on. They arent seeing and living the negative effects. They just see and enjoy the benefits.
QuoteI grew up in Western OK and went to college at OU. I moved to Tulsa in 1969. Prior to moving to Tulsa, all of our TV and newspaper coverage came from OKC. At that time, I read the paper religiously and watched the news every evening. I never noticed any sense of competition between the two cities or heard anything negative about Tulsa while I lived in the OKC area. Immediately upon moving to Tulsa, I noticed the negative comments about Oklahoma City and the complaints about Tulsa being shortchanged by the legislature. IMO, if Tulsa has been shortchanged by the legislature it's because they haven't elected representatives that are very good at their jobs or were on the same page about what was best for Tulsa. It's always a game of give and take. "You vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours." If you don't play the game well, you aren't going to get cooperation from legislators who live outside your area.
It was just the opposite for me. I grew up in Eastern Oklahoma and all our TV coverage was from Tulsa. I never noticed any sense of competition between the two cities either. It wasn't until I started reading this forum and other similar urban development type forums as well as the Tulsa World online comments to certain articles did I ever become aware of the competition. The only thing remotely competitive I recall from TV was when sometime back in the '90's a TV station asked Tulsans and OKCers what they thought of the other city. I can only remember one woman commenting on how Tulsa had a funny smell when she drove through (I guess from the refineries, or the wastewater treatment plant). I also never get any sense of the competition when watching local news.
So then what is the current status of the dams?
KTUL was reporting just the other day that the dams are a go.
Are they not?
http://cfc.ktul.com/videoondemand.cfm?id=38517&cat=loc (http://cfc.ktul.com/videoondemand.cfm?id=38517&cat=loc)
We still have to get the federal funding. Been approved but its not there to give out yet, or our turn to get it, or something like that lol. Plus I am not sure if Vision 2025 has its part of the pie ready to dole out for the dams?
Where are we on the design process and environmental impact studies?
I am also really curious as to how this is all likely to play out at this point.
Plus, I am not sure if we have enough money even with the federal, state and current vision 2025 amounts added together to do all 3 dams. We could probably do the larger Sand Springs dam, or the Jenks and Tulsa ones with the money we have. ( If I recall correctly, I think the SS dam, depending on the particular design was between 80-130 million?)
The logic for doing that one first and doing larger is that its the one that helps ensure a more steady and frequent flow of water. Captures part of Keystones flow, and slowly releases that captured amount during other parts of the day. I am also hoping that the dams have the more natural "stepped" approach to help aerate the water, help the fish migrate, and is safer for people. Plus more flow means less stagnant water times in Jenks and better water quality in general for the critters. The best, dam design, scenarios cost more to do, but if we are finally going to build them, lets make them the best we can.
First, let me say I appreciate HT's remarks and I didn't coerce them. :)
Please, watch the Frontline edition about the sorry state of the Potomac River, Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound. You couldn't possibly support these dams if you did. In fact you would consider it analagous to encouraging sex with heroin addicts from Jamaica. I know I was a supporter of the last project because it appeared there would be two critical issues addressed: connectability and retaining natural characteristics. As it stands now I doubt that either will be considered as priority. They will consider it enough of a success to simply get the money to build one of them. There won't be any locks, sluices, or scouring channels. Just a dam holding back polluted runoff from the the surrounding cities. But it will look pretty. Not as pretty as the artist's conceptions, but pleasant enough.
You are naive to think that SS would be the first dam constructed. They do not have the clout or the economic potential that Jenks has displayed with their investment plans. There are businesses that have been waiting years for this dam at Jenks. SS can't even get cleared land developed. NO way they let SS go first. So expect one more polluted pond to be formed from the River District upstream to Turkey Mtn and the SS plan "put on temporary hold". Eventually the second dam at SS dies for lack of funding. That means no staged releases since the Zink Dam requires rebuilding just to add the stair stepping feature you refer to. Any extra money goes there. That means two polluted, sediment filled shallow ponds that look good but will only be navigable for a couple years (by Authority vehicles likely), and definitely not for public use.
It will look pretty, it will stimulate more shopping and housing in Jenks and OKC will just be beside themselves with envy. For a couple years anyway. We really shouldn't be doing this.
I just wish they had locks like the ones built in OKC. Waterboy, Little Rock has similar dams on its stretch of the river, have their been pollution problems there? Many other cities have these dams.
I should get a bumpersticker:
OKC doesn't give a DAM about Tulsa
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 24, 2009, 09:38:59 AM
I should get a bumpersticker:
OKC doesn't give a DAM about Tulsa
* Rimshot *
It almost seems bitter to complain about mistreatment by the state legislature. But then you just have to go back one year to realize that the leaders of Oklahoma City would prefer to treat Tulsa as the capital city's largest suburb.
Start with the promises:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20080418/ai_n27515777/
Quote
Gov. Brad Henry on Thursday signed Senate Bill 1819, economic incentive legislation designed to lure an NBA franchise to Oklahoma.
The measure received final approval from the Oklahoma House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon, and the governor signed the bill into law as soon as the paperwork was delivered to his office.
"This legislation brings us one step closer to landing an NBA franchise and further confirms that Oklahoma is truly a big league state," said Gov. Henry.
BUT, that was all rhetoric.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3361374
Quote
Stern said the owners learned "how close Tulsa is" to Oklahoma City "and how many citizens of Tulsa will consider the team to be, and did consider the [New Orleans] Hornets when they were there ... a state franchise."
Cornett said 10 to 20 percent of the Sonics' ticket sales in Oklahoma City will come from the Tulsa area, and Taylor noted that it's "90 minutes door-to-door" from Tulsa to Oklahoma City. Those numbers are why Cornett said it only made sense to include Tulsa leaders as part of Oklahoma City's presentation to the NBA.
"When you talk to NBA owners, the idea of people driving 1½ hours to an NBA game is something they're comfortable with," Cornett said. Including Tulsa as part of the team's sphere of influence meant the owners would "see a larger metropolitan area that they're more comfortable with."
But just because the team will be marketed throughout Oklahoma does not mean that Oklahoma City officials aren't somewhat territorial, at least when it comes to how the team will be identified. Stern said Friday the team might consider using "Oklahoma" as its name, noting that "you really see a much larger market than just the Oklahoma City market."
Cornett quickly squashed such a notion, pointing out that Oklahoma City's signed lease with the Sonics stipulates that the team name be "Oklahoma City."
One year later, the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce video:
Quote
"A Big League City"
How could they possibly claim Oklahoma State University to be in the "Metro"?
It's over an hour away. That's misleading.
Quote from: mjchamplin on April 24, 2009, 10:29:27 AM
How could they possibly claim Oklahoma State University to be in the "Metro"?
It's over an hour away. That's misleading.
Are they referring to the OSU campus just north of the IDL or the medical college just off SW Blvd?
I'm afraid to see what the Tulsa Metro chamber has put together.
Quote from: SXSW on April 23, 2009, 09:31:27 PM
I just wish they had locks like the ones built in OKC. Waterboy, Little Rock has similar dams on its stretch of the river, have their been pollution problems there? Many other cities have these dams.
I've seen the river at Ft. Smith but not in Little Rock. The difference is the river gets deeper and narrower. Intermittent flow is not a problem. Really easier to manage and develop.
Many cities have dams, but you don't see many of these where this type of plaines hydroriver exists. One need look no farther than Zink lake to find out what problems they create. For us, its not the river itself or the commercial/industrial sites along the river. Its the run-off from fertilized yards and oily streets around the city area that washes into the river and is impounded by the dam. We have a great opportunity to showcase a natural river that is common to the region and all we want to do is turn it into slow moving ponds.
Quote from: waterboy on April 24, 2009, 01:56:39 PM
We have a great opportunity to showcase a natural river that is common to the region and all we want to do is turn it into slow moving ponds.
As long as Keystone is there, it won't be natural in the least. The Arkansas river farther south is already a series of ponds. That's what lock and dam systems are for.
Waterboy,
You know I appreciate what you say. You have taught me that the river in it's natural state is a healthy intermittent flow prairie river. What you (perhaps) fail to realize is that 90% of people think it looks like crap the 50+% of the year it is an exposed sand bar.
Lakes, full streams or rivers, ponds - things full of water are attractive to people. Most people don't really care what the environmental health of the river is so long as it doesn't negatively impact them. Since most people don't fish it, don't swim in it, and really only look at the river . . . the aesthetic appeal will usually prevail.
Not trying to argue with you on this point, I know your factual knowledge about the river exceeds mine by a mile. Just trying to explain why your perspective often seems dismissed.
I don't buy your figures at all. And I think the prevailing opinion now in our culture is that "natural" is beautiful.
Let's put any proposed economic development to a vote of the people.
Creating lakes on the Arkansas is about economic development ala Branson Landing with the development owned by Tulsa's good old boys. I don't think that the gobs are going to be happy until they see a paddle wheel boat on the Arkansas full of tourists being paddled from a tin shack refreshment stand to a tacky amusement park -- even though it will have nothing to do with the Arkansas' history or our geography.
Now, I'm into economic development too and I think the greater and most profitable use of the Arkansas will be found in its natural state and developing parkland and themes along those lines.
HT, I'm just basing that off of what I see on this forum and people I talk to. I can not think of one development facing a body of water that is as inconsistent as the Arkansas River in Tulsa. Dry lake beds, dry run creeks, and half full rivers don't seem to do it.
I enjoy walking out in the mud flats / sand bars. My dogs enjoy splashing threw them too. But my observations indicate to me that development doesn't consider empty bodies of water as a center for development. Think of all the water that is wasted in Vegas to try to make the desert look like a pond, or the "river" they installed in Bricktown, or the one they "tamed" in San Antonio.
I'm not taking a stand on the issue, just making an observation. Nor will I stand by my 90% figure, which is just "feeling" figure.
Yes, I understand that CF. My wife talks about the ugly old river all the time. She is from up north where this type of river is not common. In graphics we used to have a term for color prints that were not accurate but would fool most people. We called them "pleasing color". That's what unsophisticated users want, a pleasing river.
Economically a river full of water is easier to develop around. If that's what we've decided we want. Unfortunately the devil is in the details. As usual, the economics of development does not include the cost of maintenance, cleanup and health hazards. In this case it doesn't even include the more measurable costs of policing and rescue. It doesn't include the opportunity costs (what we could have done with the money that would have been more profitable). This is what we will regret not having prepared for. Ask Tulsan's if they want a full river with boats, restaurants, entertainment and beautiful vistas paid for by federal money and they would say yes. Throw in that it could be an ecological disaster in the making for wildlife and a pollution magnet that would fill up with sand quickly and they may reconsider.
Today, the Kystone Dam would not even be considered because of what we didn't know would happen. They would have used a multiple of regulating dams.
Nathan, I don't buy the argument that it is no longer natural. Nothing is totally natural once man steps in. However, the rhythyms created by dam releases mimic the natural flows, they mitigate the extremes to keep the flooding and drying out in control. Keystone did alter its cycle but it retains its character with meandering, sand bars, an identifiable channel, and drought cycles. Though we lost some species of fish, most remained and the wildlife adjusted. But this is pretty large scale alterations with a 8mile backup from SS and a dam downstream from heavily used storm sewers. It won't be pretty very long.
We could make use of this river's character by simply cleaning up the century of debris left in it. We could manage its character and make it a quiet source of pride in our heritage and the role this river played in it. IOW, we could go with the flow instead of forcing something that doesn't fit. Once again Tulsa does something by alternative routes that the population would have, in fact did, turn down at the polls.
Some people don't know my history with this river and may suspect my motives. That's me sitting in an inflatable kayak around the Chandler Park area of the river with the Tulsa skyline in the background last spring. Yes, I intend to someday refloat my craft and once again provide tours of the river. I prefer a river with gulls, pelicans, herons, eagles, gar, jays, paddlefish, snakes, beavers, coyotes, foxes, nutria, sand bars, rapids and turtles any day to a slow boring pond with a shopping center and a casino blazing through the night. But that's just me. :)
Waterboy I respect your expertise. But my gut also tells me that there are people out there in the Corps of Engineers who have studied the issue in depth for many years and wouldn't sign off on dams that were doomed to fail.
Quote from: Floyd on April 24, 2009, 05:14:40 PM
Waterboy I respect your expertise. But my gut also tells me that there are people out there in the Corps of Engineers who have studied the issue in depth for many years and wouldn't sign off on dams that were doomed to fail.
Oh, they won't fail. They will successfully dam up water. That brings up a scary thought. Everyone thinks Someone is watching over us. The Corps, INCOG, the city, the county, ODEQ, Wildlife Associations, Game & Fish, Levee District...Someone. I don't think anyone is. That comes from first hand experience since 2002. I could expand but I'll try to keep it simple. I think this is being carefully managed by the players who have much to gain with water in the river. RPA, Jenks COC, Developers, Casinoes, Flintco and others. Sorry to channel FB here but they appear to be the underlying momentum for this.
The Corps has no interest in the folly of the cities along the river. Their mandate is to alleviate flooding. Build a giant ferris wheel along the banks or put a fountain on top a derrick in the middle of Zink lake with a spot light. They don't care. Their interest in the river is in any activity that would affect flooding of the river. That's it. They own very little land on the river. So if a dam is proposed and it is proven that it will not adversely affect flooding of the communities along the river, they may shake their head at the insanity, but they sign off. Especially if the senator affecting their budgeting would like to see it happen.
They are often pressured by wildlife groups, farmers and industrial concerns along the river to make decisions that would help their causes. For instance fishermen have long requested that the river not be allowed to go completely dry for long periods of time so that fish can survive. They do their best. However, they routinely ignore the rowing crew requests for regatta flows. Right Conan? I called them to discuss my tours. They said stay off their little parcel of land without permission otherwise, don't call us again. I laugh every time I hear about the efforts to protect Least Tern habitats. They flood their nests mercilessly each spring. Didn't read about it, saw it. Talked to a sportsman who told me how they destroyed fish habitats below one of their dams even though he had warned them that it would happen.
Unless myself and others like me who know this is a mistake don't continue to offer contrasting views of river development, you will someday be quite surprised to find that no one was protecting anything but their own economic interests.
Ps. BTW, why does anyone think Tulsa has much to gain from these dams? We already have one and it hasn't done squat. We don't have enough land that can be developed within our boundaries. A little over by the cement plant and public works if we can do so without much substructure requirements, and Kings Crossing, but that's it. The rest is refineries, trucking companies, a sewage treatment plant, and protected areas like Turkey Mountain. Jenks is the BIG winner in getting dam funds. River District, RiverWalk, Acquarium, and RiverSpirit. Sand Springs had a dam once. Didn't do squat. They blew it up. Think about it...follow the money.....ooooh.... :P
Cities with sandy, meandering rivers have successfully dammed their rivers for recreation with no ill effects. Just off the top of my head Omaha's Missouri river is similar and is used for recreational boating, also Kansas City. The Missouri and Arkansas are very similar, and if it can work there it can work in Tulsa. I just hope they end up deciding to put in locks so they can be used in the future to go from one lake to another.
Of course I'm no expert but I don't understand why the Arkansas is so drastically different. And seeing how OKC can turn a drainage ditch into a nice river with LOCKS makes me wonder why it can't be done in Tulsa as well.
It can be done. My opinion is that it won't be. Too much money expended, too little return and it results in more overhead. Water testing, security, rescue, operations. With locks you have to actually interact with the river and allow usage of it by the population to justify their cost. A river full of private boats, gnarly fishermen and drunken swimmers will not be tolerated. Maybe a sluice of some sort may actually happen but even then the cities take on a large liability.
The Missouri? Way drastic different. Its like the 2nd largest river in the country. The Corps has had a long losing battle with the Missouri. They admit as much. It has been the testing area for a lot of different methods of water management, most of them failed. It has water all the time because its a much larger, wider, wilder river. Much of the development you speak of consists of parks that were formed when small dams created slow areas that filled with silt. When the river rises they submerge. A lot of ships, and citizens, lost on that river in the last two centuries. I don't know about testing near Omaha but I would suspect downstream from Omaha would not be good.
I think its too late for successfully arguing against these dams. (I expect my karma is dropping as we speak ;) The momentum is mindless. "River Development" is a euphemism for shopping centers, restaurants and condos on the river. That's what we know. That's what we do.
We cling to this idea that the river has little value now, so any change can only be for the better and compare ourselves to other communities that have done something to their river as proof. For instance, the Oklahoma River. It seldom had water in it before. Not too hard to manage that system as you divert water from other areas through a basically flat topography. It doesn't drain a large hilly area or deal with water sent downstream from Kansas. It was like putting a Koi pond with a fountain in your back yard. More importantly, I would challenge anyone who thinks it has been an economic horse for them. My son lives nearby. Both the Brickyard canal and the river are for the most part...unused. The million dollar ferries that Devon put on the river are lonely beasts.
Though there were some pretty strong arguments from sportsmen during the last river development vote, I don't see them around now. The best we can do now is lobby for a full and realistic understanding of what they will actually do, what they'll actually cost and what we want to accomplish with them. Without the hype and with some way of holding these people accountable for what they're promising.
Quote from: waterboy on April 25, 2009, 10:17:12 AM
We cling to this idea that the river has little value now, so any change can only be for the better and compare ourselves to other communities that have done something to their river as proof. For instance, the Oklahoma River. It seldom had water in it before. Not too hard to manage that system as you divert water from other areas through a basically flat topography. It doesn't drain a large hilly area or deal with water sent downstream from Kansas. It was like putting a Koi pond with a fountain in your back yard. More importantly, I would challenge anyone who thinks it has been an economic horse for them. My son lives nearby. Both the Brickyard canal and the river are for the most part...unused. The million dollar ferries that Devon put on the river are lonely beasts.
I would disagree with your assessment on the Oklahoma River and Bricktown Canal. You are correct, the Oklahoma River for the most part is unused... for now. The river and its infrastructure needed to be in place first. Now, Oklahoma City is moving forward with Core To Shore plan, which will redevelop 540 acres of blight between downtown and the river.
The Oklahoma River, however, is the training venue for the U.S. Olympic rowing team. The Devon boats are mostly empty, but the infrastructure is there for the river's growth in usage. Once development begins along the river, more people will use the boats. However, themed cruises are being discussed to get more people to use the boats, and people are warming to the idea. The manager is applying for a liquor license to serve drinks and provide live entertainment on the boats.
And to the poster who calls our river a drainage ditch... do you mean that literally or practically? Because before it practically was a drainage ditch but is is an actual natural river. Oklahoma City leaders in the 1950s allowed the Corps of Engineers to f*** up the North Canadian River by rechanneling the river into a wide open channel. Then, they cleared out miles of trees and shrubs. It literally divided the city.
Also, thanks to city leaders in the 1950s, Oklahoma City went from 85 sq. miles to 621 sq. miles. Not the brightest leaders in those days. Now it is up to us to make it work.
I wrote my former OKC district rep voicing my disdain that many OKC leaders were voting against Tulsa dams, and that it should be approved. However, he voted in favor of Tulsa's dams. His name is Guy Liebmann. He did a good job with northwest OKC when he was a councilman, and now he represents a district in northwest OKC where I lived. He is a good guy and supports an equal share of tax dollars for both cities to encourage competitive development. But that is the best I can do, guys.
Quote from: okcpulse on April 25, 2009, 09:24:19 PM
I wrote my former OKC district rep voicing my disdain that many OKC leaders were voting against Tulsa dams, and that it should be approved. However, he voted in favor of Tulsa's dams. His name is Guy Liebmann. He did a good job with northwest OKC when he was a councilman, and now he represents a district in northwest OKC where I lived. He is a good guy and supports an equal share of tax dollars for both cities to encourage competitive development. But that is the best I can do, guys.
I definately appreciate your support.
Pulse, I'm not sure I see where we disagree. I do think that your river, canal and Bricktown are set up for growth. I was just pointing out that your development was on a different kind of river under different circumstances.
Something is messed up. Several have said we'll get this money when pigs fly and now we have swine flu.
Waterboy:
You referenced something wrong with Keystone, could you elaborate for us non-natives?
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 27, 2009, 08:07:10 AM
Something is messed up. Several have said we'll get this money when pigs fly and now we have swine flu.
Which is obviously airborne. Whoever that was take it back
Is the Arkansas river in Tulsa that different than the Arkansas in Muskogee or Fort Smith? They have dams and locks there that seem to work fine with the silt load, and the river is open to navigation because of the locks. I'm just trying to understand how the river in Tulsa is that different and why there would be problems. I do realize that there is more pollution runoff that enters the river in Tulsa but it's that way in every city that has a river.
I personally would like to see locks installed not because there will be a bunch of boats in the river but in the future I could see us wishing we would've put them in when we did. I think something like the Devon boats in OKC would do much better on the Arkansas. And I could see pleasure boats on our river someday if the City is ready for it i.e. rescue boats, regulations, etc. None of that happens without locks connecting the lakes though.
I like the idea of keeping the area beneath the existing low water dam open for kayaking and fishing, maybe enhance that asset by building an actual kayaking course utilizing the old PSO jetty. And then, say, if we ever want to have boats on the river have the deeper, rock-lined west bank act as a canal to access the lock that would be installed in the dam. I imagine any locks would go on the west bank side of the river because it's deeper with steeper banks, while the east River Parks bank will remain more natural with sandy shoreline and lots of trees.
I remember the Arkansas before and after Keystone and it looked much the same, before the creation of Zink Lake.
Some folks here have cited other small cities that have dammed their rivers but I am reminded of the Bay Area restoring their Wetlands and Florida restoring the Everglades.
I wonder about the history of this current focus on "water in the river" here in Tulsa. I don't know if it started with Editorials in the World, or if it was a grassroots development. Like just about everything else in Tulsa, I imagine it was a "top down" scenario. Seeing the genesis of this would tell me alot about who led the charge and why we have embraced this current issue.
But we've survived The Main Mall and the Williams Brothers Ice Skating Rink and Economic Diversification and all the other failed schemes that Tulsa has embarked upon.
Meanwhile, I'm glad there will be a payroll and that Tulsa believes she's gotten something she wants. Heck, I'll probably be the first one to take visiting tourists on a ride on our paddle wheel steamboat. They will be delighted that they got to visit the Old South.
Let's face it, with the big boom behind us and the big bust looming, we're all headed off towards singularity anyway.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 27, 2009, 08:13:54 AM
Waterboy:
You referenced something wrong with Keystone, could you elaborate for us non-natives?
I think what you refer to is my remark that the Keystone Dam would probably not be built today, at least not in the same manner. The Corps stopped building such dams about the time they finished ours. It began to be evident that they caused many problems with river ecology and the surrounding ecosystems. The dam itself is nearly at its designated lifespan though it can last a lot longer according to recent reports. No one wants to contemplate the cost of replacing it but eventually it will have to be rebuilt.
Hydro dams certainly are less polluting and a cleaner method of producing energy than coal or hydrocarbons and less risky than nuclear but have a long list of their own environment damage. Here is a link to read a pretty well balanced list of pros and cons.
http://www.ceeonline.org/greenGuide/energy/upload/EnergySources/Hydro.aspx
To summarize, they are hell on fish migration. Shortly after the Keystone Dam started operation species of fish began to dissappear from the river below. Others are stressed, injured and declining in population. Silt builds up along the smaller dams and decreases the reservoir capacity which means larger and larger releases. That has certainly happened at Lake Keystone. Downstream silt deposits are shifted from the mouth of the river to the smaller dams (like those planned at SS and Jenks.) Those buildups of silt are often contaminated because of vegetation that extracts mercury from the underlying rock formations, then decay and dissolve it into the river. It is exacerbated by metropolitan storm sewer runoff. It doesn't matter if you aren't a fisherman or environmentalist. What follows is a change in the food chain and polluted, silt choked waterways.
The improvements in computer designed and operated turbines that are more efficient mean that low head dams or "run of river" flows can create electricity without such drastic changes to watersheds. No more of these large dams have been built since the sixties though that's probably because no more viable areas are available for them. Wisconsin and Minnesota do a great job of forming alliances of environmentalists that negotiate with the operators of hydro dams when their licenses come up for renewal to maintain constant flows and fish ladders to keep their rivers alive. What our Corps people and dam proponents here say can't be done, is being done there. Alas, no such co-operation is visible here. In fact, there is only the operators and the developers.
I am skeptical that a large dam is the best way to control flooding on this river. The Yangze Dam in China is going to be the extreme example of that. A better way would be smaller dams with access for fish to migrate combined with channelizing, dredging and moving industry and housing reasonable distances away from the flood prone areas. We did that in a smaller way with our retention ponds after the floods in the late 70's. These areas can be just like the parks and soccer fields in east Tulsa, doing double duty.
Quote from: SXSW on April 27, 2009, 11:35:04 AM
Is the Arkansas river in Tulsa that different than the Arkansas in Muskogee or Fort Smith?
Yes. Deeper and less fluctuation in river levels. At Muskogee you get the confluence of three rivers, Arkansas, Verdigris and Grand. The barges could not operate without the locks and dams but the consistent water levels make it all happen for them.
Also just because you don't hear any press about siltation and pollution doesn't mean it isn't a problem. The navigation channel needs to be deepened according to their spokesman as it has silted up. The Illinois River is a pretty nasty little waterway these days but its still quite popular and seemingly immune to a tarnished reputation. Its dark green for heavens sake and hard to see the bottom even in shallow water.
So would our new dams look something like this (minus the lock unless they hopefully decide to add it):
(http://www.tulsaweb.com/PORT/88-1908.jpg)
Are there provisions that can be made to improve flow as such to keep siltation at a minimum and protect fish species?
Quote from: SXSW on April 28, 2009, 01:07:56 AM
So would our new dams look something like this (minus the lock unless they hopefully decide to add it):
(http://www.tulsaweb.com/PORT/88-1908.jpg)
Are there provisions that can be made to improve flow as such to keep siltation at a minimum and protect fish species?
It looks like they are using a dredger to control silt (bottom right in the pic). There are features that promote fish migration including fish ladders & elevators. It would seem locks could help as well.
Our poster, V2025, should have details of our proposed dams. It is of some note that the original proposals before the Keystone dam was built suggested a dozen or so of these type dams along the river in the Tulsa area. Also note no development along the banks.
SXSW, you and I both want connectablility along the river. Locks are not the only way to do that but the most commonly known. However they are expensive and require more planning. I am not an engineer so not capable of detailing the alternatives. I can say they would depend on the uses of the river. A lock is not necessary for the craft I use; hpv's and surface effect vehicles. You can easily accomodate them with a sluice or canal or minimum river flows.
Perhaps shallow canals at each dam that are designed somewhat like spurs on railroad tracks or interchanges on a highway. This would allow fish migration and small craft connections. They would also make excellent nodes for development that are easily maintained and regulated.
My concern is that these issues are not being presented to the public and addressed. Dredging is never discussed. When you start hearing the principals outlining the real, ongoing, longterm costs that these dams will create-security, safety, regulation, maintenance, pollution abatement, etc. then you can be assured that they can be trusted to make them connectable. When you see the issues of public usage confirmed in the designs instead of just drawings of sailboats and marinas, you can start to belive in them. Otherwise its the same shell game as the Zink Lake project with the same dismal results.
I've been monitoring this thread closely and wanted to see what developed without my posting
The issues brought up here and many others are what are presently being evaluated by the design team. CH2MHill has only been under contract for a few months, is making significant progress (and there is a significant amount of 'stuff' to go through). Presently, they are focusing on the regulatory side of the equation with agency meetings and discussions. Looking for holes in the previous data and assumptions made in the study so that we don't run into delays. Essentially, they are first developing the boundaries, while others (myself included) continue to meet with our Federal and State Delegations plus the Corps headquarters to understand those processes, requirements and traps as we proceed.
Waterboy, maintenance is a huge topic and WILL NOT be ignored that lesson has been truly learned at Zink. Key features of these projects will include a variety of means for passive sand control (plus likely access for active measures should the need arise) and the structures will be significantly safer than what we have at Zink. I share your frustration with sailboats shown in various renderings, I sailed competitively for 25 years and am one of a few who used to sail in Zink regularly (still have the broken rudder to proove it) and know first hand the difficulties of river sailing. Likely, some areas will be suitable for sailing when flow conditions are right but none of the current projects constructs any marinas (at this time) those will most likely be left to local development.
To those who would like to lock from lake to lake (me included) some things have changed since adoption of the master plan and some have not. What has not changed is that a series of lakes connected by locks is still not feasible nor is it anticipated to be so at any time in the near future but that does not mean there are not alternate means of connectivity that will be looked at.
Rest assured, THERE WILL BE A SERIES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS this summer. These will have multiple missions including updating the public on what the plan is and (importantly) is not, what we anticipate funding for, what can and can't be done (we have limitations that OKC did not have specifically related to endangered species) and very importantly to present preliminary design concepts and take your comments on those as we proceed.
That's good to know there will be a planning process with public input. I do hope somehow locks make it into the plans, or at least the dams are designed as such to allow future construction of locks on one side. Maybe build the approach canals on each side but just leave out the actual locks which could be added at a later date (or never at all). I just think completely shutting out the idea of locks would not be wise.
I was looking at this plan for the Sand Springs dam I found, is this still more/less the plan? I like the fact that the dam is on the axis of Main St. in Sand Springs. It would be really neat to see their downtown area extended south along Main down to the river and then a pedestrian bridge built on top of or beside the dam. I also notice that marina, will the Sand Springs river lake be meant for boats? If so that makes locks connecting the other lakes that much more important. Wish I could actually read the labels..
(http://www.sandspringsok.org/caffeine/uploads/files/CityNews/River%20Renderings-B.jpg)
The Sand Springs dam location is as shown and the marina location will likely move further upstream into the River City Park area.
V2025, I figured you were monitoring. Thanks for replying and reassuring my concerns.
I like the idea of canals bypassing the dams but look forward to any other alternatives. Connectivity is important. I would encourage anyone who can to make that point at these planning meetings.
Quote from: waterboy on April 28, 2009, 02:13:42 PM
V2025, I figured you were monitoring. Thanks for replying and reassuring my concerns.
I like the idea of canals bypassing the dams but look forward to any other alternatives. Connectivity is important. I would encourage anyone who can to make that point at these planning meetings.
I agree, whether it be by lock or another means connectivity is important for the long-term success of the river and its future development. The idea of an urban lake for boating and fishing from potentially Bixby all the way to almost Lake Keystone is very appealing.
Quote from: SXSW on April 28, 2009, 03:29:29 PM
I agree, whether it be by lock or another means connectivity is important for the long-term success of the river and its future development. The idea of an urban lake for boating and fishing from potentially Bixby all the way to almost Lake Keystone is very appealing.
I dont think we want lakes all the way (need some sand bar areas for least tern habitats) and certainly wont get them that way with these 3. The Jenks dam will not back water up all the way to Zink Lake for instance. There will be several miles where the river will pretty much be like it is now. Except for more flow times allowed for by the larger Sand Springs dam.
Are they still considering the SS dam being larger to capture and allow for more flow times?
Plus, I have heard that the Jenks and Zink dams will be the ones done first since there isnt enough money to do all 3 dams yet. Is this really true?
I have been reading the posts on here and listening to the comments about the flow rates and how it can be quite unsafe a lot of the time. I do think it would be nice to have more watercraft of different sorts on parts of the river/lakes. What are some of the possibilites for alerting people to the water flow rates and what craft can or can not be on the river at certain times? Could there perhaps be electronic signs at the marinas and docks which alert people to the conditions? Something that says (current flow rate = X, small motor boats ok today from 6am-3pm, paddle boats not ok) etc. Kind of like a current and future weather report for the river that you can check online and also see right there at each marina and main landing/dock.
Quote from: waterboy on April 27, 2009, 10:47:56 PM
Yes. Deeper and less fluctuation in river levels. At Muskogee you get the confluence of three rivers, Arkansas, Verdigris and Grand. The barges could not operate without the locks and dams but the consistent water levels make it all happen for them.
Prior to the lock and dam projects, the Arkansas was still rather inconsistent and not very deep all the way to the Mississippi. Sure, sometimes there'd be good flow, but other times there wasn't.
Quote from: nathanm on April 28, 2009, 06:15:14 PM
Prior to the lock and dam projects, the Arkansas was still rather inconsistent and not very deep all the way to the Mississippi. Sure, sometimes there'd be good flow, but other times there wasn't.
I don't get your point. Not very deep is relative. 3ft at the 11th street bridge vs 11 ft on the channel below Muskogee. Both are shallow but their is no escaping that the river is actually three rivers (hence three rivers port) at Muskogee and thus is different than here. The Grand and Verdigris rivers are younger rivers that are deeper and never dry out.
Quote from: TheArtist on April 28, 2009, 05:13:40 PM
I dont think we want lakes all the way (need some sand bar areas for least tern habitats) and certainly wont get them that way with these 3. The Jenks dam will not back water up all the way to Zink Lake for instance. There will be several miles where the river will pretty much be like it is now. Except for more flow times allowed for by the larger Sand Springs dam.
Are they still considering the SS dam being larger to capture and allow for more flow times?
Plus, I have heard that the Jenks and Zink dams will be the ones done first since there isnt enough money to do all 3 dams yet. Is this really true?
I have been reading the posts on here and listening to the comments about the flow rates and how it can be quite unsafe a lot of the time. I do think it would be nice to have more watercraft of different sorts on parts of the river/lakes. What are some of the possibilites for alerting people to the water flow rates and what craft can or can not be on the river at certain times? Could there perhaps be electronic signs at the marinas and docks which alert people to the conditions? Something that says (current flow rate = X, small motor boats ok today from 6am-3pm, paddle boats not ok) etc. Kind of like a current and future weather report for the river that you can check online and also see right there at each marina and main landing/dock.
Yes the SS Lake is intended to be utilized for downstream flow pacing.
A "what goes first schedule" has not been developed nor would I expect one to be for some time. At this point, permitting time is driving the bus and we fully expect the necessity to consider the cumulative effects of the entire 42 mile corridor in permitting anything. However; with that said, we are evaluating opportunities to accelerate some aspects ahead of others like the Zink modifications and necessary components to the new lakes like bank stabilization and habitat improvements (never a waste of effort), perhaps proceeding ahead of the new dams. Much of this is due to a potentially faster permitting action for Zink since it is an existing permitted structure and from every standpoint is looking to be a vastly improved structure but the final answer to that question is still better than a year away. Additionally, from my experience with in-river projects, I expect the scope and complexity of the improvements for each structure to have an influence on what goes when. If full funding is not available at the time of permitting, I imagine there will be development pressure to consider but at this point we are proceeding with an assumption that both the new dams would be developed at the same time.
Good to know, thanks for the info. :)
Quote from: waterboy on April 28, 2009, 10:07:28 PM
I don't get your point. Not very deep is relative. 3ft at the 11th street bridge vs 11 ft on the channel below Muskogee. Both are shallow but their is no escaping that the river is actually three rivers (hence three rivers port) at Muskogee and thus is different than here. The Grand and Verdigris rivers are younger rivers that are deeper and never dry out.
My point is that the river isn't naturally nearly as different as you contend south of Tulsa, or wasn't until the navigation project kept it full and deep enough for navigation year round. (I have no idea what the grand and verdigris were like before the dams)
My understanding is that the navigation project used the verdigris not because it had more water, but because there is less rise between muskogee and catoosa on the verdigris than there is between muskogee and tulsa on the arkansas.
Quote from: nathanm on April 30, 2009, 11:40:05 AM
My point is that the river isn't naturally nearly as different as you contend south of Tulsa, or wasn't until the navigation project kept it full and deep enough for navigation year round. (I have no idea what the grand and verdigris were like before the dams)
My understanding is that the navigation project used the verdigris not because it had more water, but because there is less rise between muskogee and catoosa on the verdigris than there is between muskogee and tulsa on the arkansas.
Partially correct. Other reasons included the significantly better soil conditions along the ditch route vs. excavating the sand river bed and that as an industrial feature it needed to end up where there were vacant lands to develop as a port.
Quote from: nathanm on April 30, 2009, 11:40:05 AM
My point is that the river isn't naturally nearly as different as you contend south of Tulsa, or wasn't until the navigation project kept it full and deep enough for navigation year round. (I have no idea what the grand and verdigris were like before the dams)
My understanding is that the navigation project used the verdigris not because it had more water, but because there is less rise between muskogee and catoosa on the verdigris than there is between muskogee and tulsa on the arkansas.
Well, I have to disagree. They are different types of rivers. Even the name is suggestive of that. Verdi/gris...French for greenish gray...is descriptive of a different type of river due to a different topography. The Arkansas is brown. The Neosho, commonly called the Grand, isn't known as a sandy river with big sand bars either. It is rocky, and deep. Geologically they are younger rivers in their development than the Arkansas. The Arkansas travels through different topography near Tulsa than the other two do farther North and East.
However, there were supply boats that actually plied the Arkansas up to Muskogee at the turn of the century carrying supplies to small towns along the way. They couldn't make it up to Tulsey. Best we could do was mule drawn ferries around 11th street. A few tried and are buried beneath the sand. Grand and Verdigris were also navigable as far back as when they were first described and when Pierre Chouteau traded with the natives there in the early 1800's.
That seems significantly different than a sand bar filled river whose bottom was too close to the top unless it was flooding.
Quote from: waterboy on April 30, 2009, 06:52:48 PM
However, there were supply boats that actually plied the Arkansas up to Muskogee at the turn of the century carrying supplies to small towns along the way. They couldn't make it up to Tulsey. Best we could do was mule drawn ferries around 11th street. A few tried and are buried beneath the sand. Grand and Verdigris were also navigable as far back as when they were first described and when Pierre Chouteau traded with the natives there in the early 1800's.
There were supply boats that were sometimes able to make it to Muskogee. It is shallower at Tulsa, but the character of the river was much the same along its entire length in Arkansas and Oklahoma until it was dammed and turned into a series of lakes for barges to travel along.
Certainly these days it doesn't appear to be the same at all, but that's just the dams talking.
Quote from: nathanm on April 30, 2009, 07:27:08 PM
There were supply boats that were sometimes able to make it to Muskogee. It is shallower at Tulsa, but the character of the river was much the same along its entire length in Arkansas and Oklahoma until it was dammed and turned into a series of lakes for barges to travel along.
Certainly these days it doesn't appear to be the same at all, but that's just the dams talking.
Well, just not true. But its your prerogative to believe so.
Here's someone who agrees with me from back in 1887. J. D. McKown's report of the upper Arkansas river to Maj. Charles R. Suter, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. (The Arkansas Traveler in 1887 reports that J.D. McKown traveled the river from its start across 4 states noting its many changes. He was commissioned to do a survey of the river to determine how many dams would be necessary to make the entire river navigable. He notes the many changes in the river as it passes through its different locations.) This is an excerpt:
The Cimarron or Red Fork of the Arkansas comes in on the right, and contributes a considerable amount of water to the main river. Its deep red tinge is in strong contrast with the muddy water of the Arkansas, and the waters running side by side some distance before mingling have a marked and unique appearance. (this is near the current Keystone Lake area)
From the Cimarron to the mouth of Grand River the distance is 87 miles. The slope of the river in this distance is about 152 feet, or 1.75 per mile. It will take about 38,000 feet of dam to improve this portion of the river, or 437 feet per mile. (this is the SS/Tulsa/Jenks area)
About 3 miles above the mouth of Grand River is the bridge of the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad. The length is 800 feet; there are four spans of 200 feet each, and the lower chord is 34 above low-water. The bridge is a strong and handsome structure, built of wood and iron. It has no draw, and may be considered an obstruction. (this must be between Coweta and Muskogee)
About one-fourth of a mile above, the mouth of the Verdigris empties and makes quite an addition to the volume of water. The Grand River discharges still more than the Verdigris, and together they make a very perceptible difference in the main stream.
Below the mouth of the Grand, the river changes very much in its character. The bed of the river is not so wide, the channel much better, and the bars and banks contain more gravel. ( imagine that).
He then makes the point that none of the Indian Territory below the Kansas border has any potential for trade until reaching the Ft.Smith/Little Rock area. Even then OK wasn't respected much.
I read somewhere that at certain times of the year the Arkansas R. was deep enough for paddle wheel boats at least as far as Tulsa. I'll try to re-find my source this weekend.
and if I remember it correctly, Will Rogers was quoted saying something along the lines of we'll never be able to tame the arkansas.
I'm doing good on searches today
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902371-1,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902371-1,00.html)
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 01, 2009, 07:53:52 AM
I read somewhere that at certain times of the year the Arkansas R. was deep enough for paddle wheel boats at least as far as Tulsa. I'll try to re-find my source this weekend.
In one of the local history books is a pic of people dressed up on a paddle wheel that left SS and was to dock at Jenks and return. The water was high when they left but it got stuck in a snag and the water dropped leaving them stranded in Jenks. They had to return by rail.
There were and are, times when just about any boat can navigate the river around Tulsa, but within an hour or two you can be hopelessly stranded. Snags are not so much a problem these days as they were in the 1800's.
So now that, once again, OKC wins and denies Tulsa our share of the bond money, I think we may need to rethink Vision 2029 money directions.
High Court Rejects Bonds for Tulsa's Zink Damhttp://kwgs.com/post/high-court-rejects-bonds-tulsas-zink-dam (http://kwgs.com/post/high-court-rejects-bonds-tulsas-zink-dam)
QuoteTULSA, Okla. (AP) — The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that a proposed $25 million state bond issue for improvements at Tulsa's Zink Lake Dam is an unconstitutional gift to the City of Tulsa.
The state's high court ruled Tuesday that such a gift is specifically prohibited in the Oklahoma Constitution.
The Legislature initially approved the bonds in 2009 with the understanding that matching federal funds would be used to help build a series of low-water dams along the Arkansas River. But the federal funding never materialized and state Sen. Patrick Anderson challenged the bonds after an effort to issue them for a new purpose.
Attorneys for the state and the Tulsa River Parks Authority had argued the project serves a state public purpose and funding should be allowed to go forward.
I'm sure the representatives have our best interests at heart. We have local reps who are more concerned about making sure the capital has a misspelled monument to YHWH Law.
So...super.
Funding Low Water Dam Improvementshttp://kwgs.com/post/funding-low-water-dam-improvements (http://kwgs.com/post/funding-low-water-dam-improvements)
(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/201211/Low%20water%20Dam_2.jpg)
QuoteWe must have water in the River. That is the gist of a report going to the Tulsa City Council next week.
Voters rejected funding low water dams earlier this month. There is still a chance for federal funding, but the State Supreme Court last week, stripped away Tulsa's source for matching funds.
Mayor Bartlett thinks the Kaiser Foundation's "Gathering Place", planned for the area near the low water dam, could be counted toward matching community funds. The Foundation is proposing a $100-million plus development in front of the Blair Mansion near 29th and Riverside Drive. They hope to break ground in 2014.
The River Development Task Force will present its report to the city council one week from Thursday.
So I'm trying to figure out if the Mayor has decided since V2 failed, that there's no other option.
I disagree with the conclusion that Tulsan's voted down low water dams. That is way too simplistic. Contributions to the funds necessary to complete the dams was voted down and even then only because they were lumped in with enough pork to feed the Alabama football team for years.
Tulsan's want water in the river. They didn't trust V2. Apparently though, few others in the state want water in the river around here.
River Task Force Presents Recommendations to City Councilhttp://www.publicradiotulsa.org/post/river-task-force-presents-recommendations-city-council#.UMIzAcznYUE.facebook (http://www.publicradiotulsa.org/post/river-task-force-presents-recommendations-city-council#.UMIzAcznYUE.facebook)
QuoteRecommendations of a River Development Task Force are formally presented to Tulsa City Councilors. Task Force Chairman Herb Fritz says the report includes 30 points, but the most important by far is 'keeping water in the river'
O.o
Quoteand moving forward with plans to upgrade Zink Dam and finding funding for dams near Jenks and Sand Springs. The report also recommends the city do all it can to support the Gathering Place development at 31st and Riverside, spearheaded by the George Kaiser Family Foundation.
A final recommendation is to create a committee or agency to oversee and coordinate all development along the river. City Councilors are expected to follow that suggestion and form such an entity.
Assuming that water can be "put" in the river, how would the City of Tulsa form that entity for a river that snakes 40 miles through two counties? There needs to be an umbrella authority that includes representation of cities, counties and tribes from Keystone Dam to Broken Arrow or you'll have built in dysfunction and hostility. Tulsa is a big player but not the only one.
In case no one has noticed, the Corps won't even allow increased water releases from the Missouri into the Mississippi even to float barges. We're asking for water for recreational.