Why does the Arkansas need to have water in it? I think I predate Keystone Dam and to my knowledge the Arkansas has always had sandbars and dry areas and times when there was more or less water depending on the season and weather.
One expert told me that the river's condition is typical of plains rivers.
Instead of a jerry-rigged, over-developed mistake, I'd like to see the river as close to its natural state as possible.
Before every monied interest in town stakes a claim on the river, how about preserving the river with public parklands and low key, community based recreation facilities.
I think we have. Heard of the Riverparks?
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
I think we have. Heard of the Riverparks?
YT, did you miss the discussions of the Channels and INCOG's multiple lowater proposals? The mayor's remarks that the first consideration of river development is "..to put water in the river"?
The North Canadian (Oklahoma) River now has water.
Therefore the Arkansas River needs water too, right?
I dont agree w/ any development in the floodway or floodplains of the river...any river. talk about a disaster waiting to happen, especially a completely preventable one at that.
For some reason, I feel embarrassed when I drive over the Arkansas with people from out of town and they exclaim "That's the river?" Not sure why.
I would like water in the Arkansas for three main reasons. 1) It looks better. Pretty simple, a river with water in it is more appealing that a dusty mass of sand bars and bugs. 2) Entertainment: boating, fishing, and watching others enjoying themselves on the river is always a good time. I know we wont have drag boats on it, but something like dragon boat races or kayaking would be nice. 3) people are drawn to water. I dont think there is a river in the world that is nicely developed around a mostly dry river bed. If you want to develop the river, it needs water.
Maybe all that doesnt make sense, but that's what I think.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
I think we have. Heard of the Riverparks?
Yes, I too have seen the animal art.
But I'd like to see Sunoco and Sinclair contribute their land to a public park after a little clean up. You know, expand the park any where we can.
From KTUL (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0407/411177.html%22)
quote:
Tulsa - You might find yourself doing a double-take the next time you drive by the Arkansas River. There is actually water in it. Heavy rain from the past couple of weeks has filled what had been a dry section. NewsChannel 8's Elizabeth Kinney found out it has a lot of people talking about what the future could hold. But, keeping it full could take years of work and a lot of Tulsans' tax dollars.
There are no dams in place to keep water in the river. Right now, it depends on how much rainfall Tulsa gets. But people at the Riverwalk hope some dams are built soon. Because when the water goes up, so does business.
Los Cabos is busier than normal on this weekday. They're serving up sizzling plates of food to crowds of customers all out enjoying a view they don't get to see very often.
"Considering we looked at an empty river bed for a year and a half, it's a nice pleasant surprise," says Managing Partner Jimmy Blacketer.
"I come out here, it's right on the water, beautiful atmosphere, a good thing for Tulsa," says DeWayne Corvin.
The patios stay full when the river is full, making the water a lifeline for developer Jerry Gordon. The problem is, the river isn't full very often.
"We've been promised for years we'd have water in the river," Gordon says. "Only due to rains do we end up getting it."
There is a plan to build two or three low-water dams in the Arkansas River. But, building them is going slower than the river flows.
"At times I've actually given up," Gordon says. "Been to meeting after meeting, been given timelines, doesn't seem to go anywhere."
A best case scenario is two years before the dams are built. But even the city's not sure. The only sure thing about the river?
"I think the majority of people would like to see more water in the river," says RiverParks Authority Director Matt Meyer. "Elected officials understand that, too."
But, while they decide how to keep the river flowing, customers here will enjoy their chips and salsa with a waterfront view while it lasts.
"People are attracted to water," says Donna Peters. "That's why it's so successful out here right now."
Right now, the Corps of Engineers is doing an environmental impact study that has to be finished before the dams are built. But, then they still need money to build them. Each dam will cost between 25 and 30 million dollars.
Vision 2025 will match money for the project. But, right now, now cash has been raised.
We need a made for TV movie about life on the plains rivers. Lots of close ups of sand bars and such. Tulsans will be clammering to have one too.
I don't know folks. I just like natural. It looks better. You know all you guys with hair plugs. You'd look better balding.
Geez. Can you imagine what the river would look like right now had we built two more low water dams, or the amazing Channels? Especially during and extended rainy season north of us? You could drive your boat on the river parks paths. The planned piers would be submerged or washed away. The bluffs below Gordon's project would be eroded into the stage. Get real, this is only 51,000 cubic feet per second. Not even the highest level for these dates. 1973 it drained 67,000 cfs. on this date. Its rated top end flow is what...300,000cfs? Plug those numbers into your low water model.
When the spring rains come the lake fills, the river fills. Its been lower levels for the last two years but its not going to last. Talking like there hasn't been any water in the river for a year and a half is silly. It usually rises during the night while everyone sleeps.
Bear with me. You need to see the river in its normal state before you decide to create a new environmental monster. I hope to make that happen someday.
My favorite part of the river has always been Zink Lake. Without the low-water dam it would not exist and I don't know of any flooding it has caused. We have already completely ruined the river's natural state by building the Keystone Dam. I would personally much prefer the extra low-water damns. I think they can be built safely with no extra flooding. I seem to recall the river flooding plenty all on its own before it was tamed.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/FloodControl/History.asp
http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/pubs/harmsway/overview.shtml
The river stinks.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
The river stinks.
Good to know.
"...river's condition is common for plains rivers."
-That may be, but Tulsa receives more rainfall than other plains river areas, such as Wichita and OKC. Tulsa's treelined neighborhoods and lush public parks invoke a city image of greenery and life. The absence of water in the river sort of goes against the image of "green country," don't you think?
I think there is a way to preserve natural habitats and acheive higher water flow in the river.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
"...river's condition is common for plains rivers."
-That may be, but Tulsa receives more rainfall than other plains river areas, such as Wichita and OKC. Tulsa's treelined neighborhoods and lush public parks invoke a city image of greenery and life. The absence of water in the river sort of goes against the image of "green country," don't you think?
I think there is a way to preserve natural habitats and acheive higher water flow in the river.
Its not the rainfall that Tulsa receives. Its the rainfall from the watersheds north and west of Tulsa. If Tulsa is all about image and appearance, and I think you are correct, then we are on the right track. Fill 'er up, pump in some blue dye and plastic ducks. Thank goodness we didn't name ourselves mountain country![;)]
Nonetheless, please share your views on preserving the natural habitats and increasing water flow.
The point about the river being beyond its natural state is a good one. Who are you kidding when you say you want a natural river? The 100 foot damn a few miles up stream pretty much put an end to that 50 years ago. The river is now empty or full at the push of a button - go nature!
Also, waterboy, it IS about perception. All the trees in public parks and the little grassy areas in parking lots or the sculptures around town are just for perception. They look nice. Certainly the few trees, trails, and a few brass deer dont make Tulsa a national park fit for expeditions. They just make it a little nicer.
I have to agree that my favorite part of the river is the area around Zink lake. What horrible problems has it caused? In the instance of a 100 year flood any low water dam is insignificant. Considering that Key Stone cannot hold back a 100 year flood and Tulsa's river has no levies, a 5 foot dam with drop gates isnt going to make the problem much worse.
I'm also curious, are any of the people that want to keep the 'natural' dammed state of the river in place also the ones pushing for river development?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
"...river's condition is common for plains rivers."
-That may be, but Tulsa receives more rainfall than other plains river areas, such as Wichita and OKC. Tulsa's treelined neighborhoods and lush public parks invoke a city image of greenery and life. The absence of water in the river sort of goes against the image of "green country," don't you think?
I think there is a way to preserve natural habitats and acheive higher water flow in the river.
Its not the rainfall that Tulsa receives. Its the rainfall from the watersheds north and west of Tulsa. If Tulsa is all about image and appearance, and I think you are correct, then we are on the right track. Fill 'er up, pump in some blue dye and plastic ducks. Thank goodness we didn't name ourselves mountain country![;)]
Nonetheless, please share your views on preserving the natural habitats and increasing water flow.
The lakes surrounding Tulsa? Not natural. The river not flooding at least annually, not natural.
Most of the trees species in the area, the green grass. Also, not natural.
Then toss in millions upon millions of square feet of buildings, more millions of square feet of roads, asphalt, lighting, cars, running water, mowed lawns, planted flowers and shrubs, dogs, cats, fencing, all completely unnatural to this region. Need I really go on?
This is an urban area and is already far from "natural". We already have "terraformed" this region. If it's pleasing to most the residents here to have water, and it seems to be the overwhelming will that there be water in the river, than so be it.
If you want to really live in nature, go live in a mud hut. But good luck on really finding a "natural" area, even out in those wide open spaces.
Lots of myths and misunderstandings in those last two posts.
My favorite is the, "its all about perception".
That's a great marketing phrase and God knows I've used it enough but it isn't all encompassing. Nature is reality, human perception of nature is not necessarily so. For instance it is our perception that putting water into a plains river will make it pretty. As though God somehow doesn't know pretty. Without getting into philosophy which I suck at, suffice it to say that the perception phrase is what makes Tulsa tick.
One reality is that the lowater dams are only 5ft. tall and cause little problem during high water. From a distance they appear so but in reality they are twice that. Consider that the depth right now at 11th street is 10ft and you realize they are a hindrance to flow. Hindrance causes back up and water to come out of banks. Our engineers feel we can handle this hindrance with the correct usage of gates. Of course the dirty little secret is that if the budget shrinks and does not allow the number of gates, which may or may not work well, then that number will be reduced. But they'll still build the dam. That is what happened at Zink lake. They also felt like a 100 yr flood would not occur twice in my lifetime of 50yrs. Go figure.
Reality #2 is that the river is very close to natural in its operation from the Keystone dam thru Tulsa. The dam holds water and discharges it in synch with what nature would normally do and at similar levels. In fact that is one of their missions is to have as little effect as possible on the wildlife along that stretch. The result is numerous sandbars that birds nest in and feed on. Shallows that fish live in and animals like beavers, and coyotes operate in. Rapids that create fishing for egrets and herons and humans. The dam only ironed out the flooding cycles that flooded Brookside etc. Even then they don't stop them completely. But the lowater dams? Immediately after its construction in Tulsa, entire species of fish that migrated upstream to spawn dissappeared. It wasn't expected either.
Reality #3, the Keystone lake is hardly a lake. It is the confluence of the Cimmarron and Arkansas rivers that actually comprises the lake and it is not significant in size. Most of the "lake" is swollen rivers. They still act like rivers too. Currents and fluctuating levels make them alive.
Reality #4. Zink lake is a polluted mess that silted up almost immediately making its proposed sailing, boating, swimming uses impossible. All because of the lowater dam. How's that for problems it created? Here's why. Because of that lowater dam the runoff from the millions of square feet of concrete and fertilized lawns in the downtown/midtown area that Swake referred to, complete with oil, pesticides and animal feces is now allowed to freely flow into the pond. There they are captured to create the only truly polluted area of the river in Tulsa County. It sits stagnant during low flow capturing all the foam cups, beer cans, and shopping carts etc. to make that truly beautiful vision of water we all want.
This would be no problem if there were an ongoing program to dredge the lake, filter the debris coming from storm sewers and police the offenders who throw trash into it, but guess what? No budget. No inclination to create a budget since no income from the property. Human nature is what you all should be trying to change. Because it looks like we all expect it to somehow be different when we add more dams and more people.
Reality #5 is just an insight. Of course Tulsa has levees on the river. Contact the Levee district manager and he can inform you better than I. Early pictures of the river in Tulsa will show you where they are. All the paths run along those levees. The insight is that Tulsans are ignorant of the operation of this river and how our ancestors both abused it and managed to control it. We are not water people. We are mercantilists. Most Tulsans have never been on a boat, seen the waterworks, understand how basic systems of drainage and sewage work or even that they are different systems! Just make it look pretty and not smell so we can put some shopping centers and restaurants next to it.
I know that hardly anyone will read this post or change their minds. That's part of the problem now, we want simple, fast solutions that are cheap, look good and make big money fast. Not me.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The point about the river being beyond its natural state is a good one. Who are you kidding when you say you want a natural river? The 100 foot damn a few miles up stream pretty much put an end to that 50 years ago. The river is now empty or full at the push of a button - go nature!
Also, waterboy, it IS about perception. All the trees in public parks and the little grassy areas in parking lots or the sculptures around town are just for perception. They look nice. Certainly the few trees, trails, and a few brass deer dont make Tulsa a national park fit for expeditions. They just make it a little nicer.
I have to agree that my favorite part of the river is the area around Zink lake. What horrible problems has it caused? In the instance of a 100 year flood any low water dam is insignificant. Considering that Key Stone cannot hold back a 100 year flood and Tulsa's river has no levies, a 5 foot dam with drop gates isnt going to make the problem much worse.
I'm also curious, are any of the people that want to keep the 'natural' dammed state of the river in place also the ones pushing for river development?
im sorry but there are levees on the Arkansas River. its what saved Jenks from the record flooding in 1986. The levees completely surround Jenks, around the refineries on the west bank and on the east bank protect the newblock park area and stop at the 244 bridge.
Any development within the floodway of a river is going to have serious consequences if another major flood were to happen, even if it is a low-water dam. it will displace more water than you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence
Law of Unitended Consequence
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Lots of myths and misunderstandings in those last two posts.
One reality is that the lowater dams are only 5ft. tall and cause little problem during high water. From a distance they appear so but in reality they are twice that. Consider that the depth right now at 11th street is 10ft and you realize they are a hindrance to flow. Hindrance causes back up and water to come out of banks. Our engineers feel we can handle this hindrance with the correct usage of gates. Of course the dirty little secret is that if the budget shrinks and does not allow the number of gates, which may or may not work well, then that number will be reduced. But they'll still build the dam. That is what happened at Zink lake. They also felt like a 100 yr flood would not occur twice in my lifetime of 50yrs. Go figure.
I think there is some needed clarification in your post Waterboy.
First, the 1986 and 1984 floods were 500 year events, not 100.
Also, the Arkansas river did not flood homes in 1984. Maple Ridge flooded due to overwhelmed storm drains that had not been cleared of debris in years. The Arkansas did flood that year but it never crossed Riverside Drive except at the underpass at the pedestrian bridge. Surely the flooding in the river made it harder for the drains to empty the area, but the river was not the cause. I knew people that live in the area then and attempted to sue the city over the storm drains.
1986 was a man made flood due to mismanagement of flood waters upstream by the Corp.
Since then hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in Tulsa to make sure those two events don't happen again.
Thanks for the correction re the 500yr events. It makes my points even stronger. As far as Maple Ridge flooding I didn't mention that, but once again you make my point. It was real hard for the neighborhoods to drain into a flooding river. It always will be and the low water dams only exacerbate the problem. I lived in my Maple Ridge home during both those events and drove through standing water, mostly south of 21st where the streets flood even when there is high humidity.[;)]
You make another one of my points with the 86 flood which was indeed, according to the Tulsa World, a man made event. Curiously that story was not shared with the public till a decade later. It was originally reported as just a slow decision to release. Later, the story came out that they had ignored common sense and relied on reports from poorly designed remote guages upstream. The guages were positioned upstream to warn of flood stages, but didn't work because when the streams flooded they carried debris which held the guage arms under water thus registering no rising. After a week of heavy rains you'd think they might question those reports. Here's a kick. They used the remote guages so they wouldn't have to rely on human observance which cost more. The Brits call that "false economy".
Surely you don't think any amount of money will stop these "man-made events"? I don't know where the hundreds of millions have been spent. Do you? It wasn't on dredging, either in front of the Keystone Dam or downstream. I hope it was on better guages backed up with human input.
I am resigned to the prospect of two more of these monsters being built, especially the one in Jenks. The people designing them are able and quite knowledgeable of the dangers. If you see that they are cutting corners with the number of gates or changing to cheaper designs raise holy hell. But the assertion that it will never happen again is backed up with nothing but whistling in the dark. If it does, I live high on a hill no problem. But good luck with your new developments like Wind River.
I think those opposed to river development and more water in the Arkansas river are in the minority.
We want water in the river and more areas like the Riverwalk in Jenks.
Sure this is going to cost $$, but it enhances the area and makes it more appealing.
And I might add, I'm sure the Fire Department is sick and tired of people wandering out onto the sandbars and getting stuck when the dams let loose.
Its a needless time-consuming event for them when this happens, and its one more problem that would go away if the river was always full.
--
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I think those opposed to river development and more water in the Arkansas river are in the minority.
We want water in the river and more areas like the Riverwalk in Jenks.
Sure this is going to cost $$, but it enhances the area and makes it more appealing.
And I might add, I'm sure the Fire Department is sick and tired of people wandering out onto the sandbars and getting stuck when the dams let loose.
Its a needless time-consuming event for them when this happens, and its one more problem that would go away if the river was always full.
--
Interesting remarks. I agree they highlight what I feel are commonly held views in Tulsa:
1.Minority views and opinions are useless as teats on a crowbar.
2.Shopping is king.(construction is the queen)
3.Appealing appearance is ever so important.
4.A full river means a happy little town.
You may think that water in the river will decrease emergency calls but I would disagree. After nearly a dozen drownings around the old Sand Springs low water dam they finally wised up and blew it up. Those who remember it are not thrilled about the prospect of another one. Seems people are attracted to water like bugs to light. Since they have little appreciation for its status as the strongest force of nature right after earthquakes and volcanoes, tragedy often follows. Hard to drown in sand.
Look for there to be lots of people going into the river with flimsy little boats, no life jackets and even less concern for safety. Jenks will not be able to depend on TFD to save them all and will eventually prohibit all but concessionaire or rowing crew boats on the water. Otherwise huge lawsuits will follow. Your full river may very well be off limits. But it will look nice.
I didn't mean to say your opinion is useless, but economic development is a good thing, right? And water is scenic, that can't be argued can it?
Other cities have really nice riverwalks. When visiting San Antonio for an Alamo Bowl some years ago, I was blown away by theirs.
Ever since then, I've hated the Arkansa river, because I had seen what it could be. Its current condition made me feel like I live in a 2nd rate city.
If I had the cash, I'd have a nice shoreline home on Grand Lake! Sorry, but I just love water, and its one of our area's best assets, IMO.
And it probably should be off limits, that's a no brainer! Totally agree with you. River currents are not like lakes, and people drown in them all the time.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
I didn't mean to say your opinion is useless, but economic development is a good thing, right? And water is scenic, that can't be argued can it?
Other cities have really nice riverwalks. When visiting San Antonio for an Alamo Bowl some years ago, I was blown away by theirs.
Ever since then, I've hated the Arkansa river, because I had seen what it could be. Its current condition made me feel like I live in a 2nd rate city.
If I had the cash, I'd have a nice shoreline home on Grand Lake! Sorry, but I just love water, and its one of our area's best assets, IMO.
And it probably should be off limits, that's a no brainer! Totally agree with you. River currents are not like lakes, and people drown in them all the time.
I'm a little testy on this subject. No harm meant. I love the water too. Spent most of my youth going to lakes and rivers with the family. I truly believe there is a middle ground here and thats why I keep needling people about it. There is already lots of water in OK. My feeling is we don't need to fill this river 24/7 just for appearance and some restaurant/shopping. I was underwhelmed with San Antonio but that was a long time ago.
Perhaps if more people were introduced to the beauty, purpose and uniqueness of a sandy old river they wouldn't be in such a hurry to do cosmetic surgery on it. I hope to mobilize some trips down the river from Keystone to accomplish that. In the end, a small lake near Jenks and SS wouldn't be tragedy if done correctly. Certainly no bigger than Zink with better operating dam gates would be optimum. The one planned for Sand Springs is way too big.
Hey folks, this is beautiful:
"The result is numerous sandbars that birds nest in and feed on. Shallows that fish live in and animals like beavers, and coyotes operate in. Rapids that create fishing for egrets and herons and humans."
That's our Arkansas in its natural state. Thank you Waterboy for saying it so well.
When you guys talk about appearance you have to remember that fashion shapes thought on appearance. Fashion will change. There is nothing more beautiful and enduring than natural.
Retoring the river to its natural state. What a legacy for our times.
Tulsa doesn't have to immitate San Antonio. She can polish her native gifts and achieve something equally as appealing.
The only part of the river that I care to see water in full time is that on the west side opposite downtown. Where the possible "Branson Landing, but hopefully better lol" may go. The urbanized part of the river.
I actually think you can say something like this...
The more developed the area along the river the more "controlled" and "cleaned up" the river and its banks could be.
Those areas along the shore that are nature preserve areas, should not have dams on them or have the banks "tidied up". Remove the trash, sure.
The next level is park space where the river can be "natural" with the exception of Zink lake, and also the banks "beautified". (The reason for the quotes is to point out that yes, the words are subjective, just please try to understand my gist) Trees and dead brush thinned out, trash removed, etc. Make it so that one can actually go down by the river, off the trails and not be alarmed by what you see lol. Have low level development here and there like a restaurant, volleyball facilities, picnic areas, etc.
Then have a contained area or two of high density development. Here have possible hardening of the shorelines and low water dams.
Different areas along the river designated for different intensities of development. Different areas of the river varying from "natural" to "controlled". The majority being natural and park like/low density. The smallest areas being developed.
would love to see those areas zoned as such, and left that way, for good. That way everyone, builders and environmentalists, can know whats what, where it is, and over time learn how and what will have to be done to deal with the particular needs of each area.
The Arkansas River is 1450 miles long, what we are talking about doing is creating 3 or 4 tiny "lakes" that will total under 10 miles of river, less than what the Keystone dam backs up. There will be plenty of natural plains river left, we are talking about less than 1/10th of 1% of the river's total length. And again, the river is NOT in it's natural state as it goes through Tulsa anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
The Arkansas River is 1450 miles long, what we are talking about doing is creating 3 or 4 tiny "lakes" that will total under 10 miles of river, less than what the Keystone dam backs up. There will be plenty of natural plains river left, we are talking about less than 1/10th of 1% of the river's total length. And again, the river is NOT in it's natural state as it goes through Tulsa anyway.
No offense Swake but you think and talk like a city boy, and a suburban at that. The total length of the river in Tulsa to the channel, that you have quoted before, is 14 miles. Correct? From Tulsa to Keystone is probably another 14 miles. This is the only length of the river we have to deal with. So 10 miles of backed up lagoons is 10/28 or 36% of the river. Actually if you add the 4.2 for Jenks, the 2 miles for Zink Lake and the 8 miles for Sand Springs you get 14 miles or 50% of the river. Adjust figures if necessary. Its a significant impact no matter how you figure it.
One of those "tiny" lakes starts below hiway 97 and extends all the way to Shell Lake, nearly to the Keystone dam covering up an estuary that is home to 100's of pelicans each spring. Oh, well. "Tiny" is subjective I guess but an 8.4 mile lake doesn't seem to fit the description.
City boy, when did you last travel down the river from Keystone to Jenks, America? Your continued insistence that the river is not natural implies you might have first hand experience. Or did you gather that opinion by visual observation from Riverwalk? And what a narrow view of "natural". By your restraints there is nothing natural left on the planet if man has made any changes. Consider that we are part of nature.
A small polluted lake at Jenks would be just dandy with me, about 4 miles if I remember. It will be a good place to collect Quik Trip big gulp cups and plastic bags of garbage floating down from Tulsa. Dump some blue dye in it, spend some taxpayer dollars for fake sailboats anchored in the middle of the thing and pretend you're on the St.Croix or Mississippi. Faux rules. Nature drools.[;)]
Or you could go with what God gave 'ya, spruce it up a bit like Artist noted, show restraint with the size of the lakes and be well known for having done so.
One of the basic features of a river like the Arkansas is to flood, flooding washes much of the sediment you are always talking about out of the river channel on onto the shore. This also allows for the natural movement of the river over time. These are two very basic functions of the river that we do NOT allow. Another would be that we actually lessen the flow during drought periods to keep Keystone Lake full. The river left alone would actually have water in it during the summer, that low flow that we are so worried about is already not a natural occurrence.
That we might impact 50% of the river within an urbanized area I don't see as a problem. The goal of urbanism should be that within urban boundaries we live more densely and more urban and without we have a lesser impact on the environment. Well, the area in question is unquestionably urban.
You want to defend the river in this way up in Osage County above Keystone Lake, sign me up. Inside Tulsa County, so long as we don't pollute, the rules are and should be different.
Speaking of the river, I trust everyone can agree that TRASH in the river is ugly, sometimes dangerous, and always bad for either a natural or artificial river. On two occasions I have had the privilege of seeing needles in the river (one handed to be by my then 6 year old son *:CRINGE:*), but the tons of old iron pipe, broken glass, and tires can be just as hazardous. Currently, a walk on the sand bars or banks of the Arkansas River closely resembles a scene from Mad Max with old tires, rusted metal and broken and half buried who-knows-whats sticking out.
In that light, I'm glad to see that some of the Sinclair fine ($500,000) is going to be used to get crap OUT of the river. I'm not sure how far that money will go with the government spending it, but with $500,000 a volunteer based organization could get a crap ton done (disposal of tires and old oil drums IS expensive). Perhaps even use some of the money to put grates on storm sewer inflows to the river that are the source of most of the trash.
Also, every time I go to the river to let my dogs romp around on the sand bars I wish I had a backpack for one of them so I could pick up some of the trash and make her carry it around (damn spaz dog anyway). Does anyone know of such a product? It would be helpful on many hikes or even for walks around the neighborhood - plus it'd be funny.
and FINALLY, in my most humble of opinion anyone that doesnt go to the river to do something as it is at least once a month should pretty well drop out of this conversation.
Actually Teddy... Oklahoma didnt get its first Republican leadership until 1963. Well after the oil boom. Furthermore, 21 of 29 governors have been democrat.
So if there is a problem in Oklahoma that you want to tie to a political party. You dont have much of a choice in who to blame. Especially if the problem is legacy pollution.
I posted this under the development forum earlier this week.
I spent last Saturday on the north bank of the Oklahoma river at the Chesapeake Boat House watching a rowing regatta. There was litteraly tons of trash between the rowing docks and bank, including full trash bags. Back in the cove to the west side of the boat house, there were tires, unidentified flotsam, cups, about anything you could imagine.
Just nasty.
I'm reminded of a project in San Francisco Bay where a large polluted area of shoreline was restored to its natural state of Wet Lands.
We can put together a weak imitation of other cities or we can preserve and develop what is unique to Tulsa.
Restoring the Arkansas to its natural state is a message that resonates. I could see a coalition of fiscal conservatives and environmentalists and fans of the river defeating commercial development of the river.
It looks to me like the local monied interests want to commercialize the river so they can advance Tulsa's major industry – shearing the sheep (since that's just about all we have left).
The status quo in this town – destroying one asset after another – has got to stop. It's time for a new regime. And I'm not talking about the mayor.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
One of the basic features of a river like the Arkansas is to flood, flooding washes much of the sediment you are always talking about out of the river channel on onto the shore. This also allows for the natural movement of the river over time. These are two very basic functions of the river that we do NOT allow.
That we might impact 50% of the river within an urbanized area I don't see as a problem. The goal of urbanism should be that within urban boundaries we live more densely and more urban and without we have a lesser impact on the environment. Well, the area in question is unquestionably urban.
You want to defend the river in this way up in Osage County above Keystone Lake, sign me up. Inside Tulsa County, so long as we don't pollute, the rules are and should be different.
You let me down Swake. Aren't you a BTW grad? I expect better.
Its true that a river of this type wants to flood perodically and in so doing deposits nutrients and sand to the outlying areas. That is why Bixby grows great stuff. We have reversed that process now. With runoff we deposit nutrients into the river and carry them downstream into the Mississippi. The river still changes its shape, only within the confines that we delineate so that Wind River can build within 65 feet of the bank. Those are only two features of a river you conveniently chose to prove a useless point (the river is no longer natural so lets continue to defile, slash and burn). I just can't buy your argument having seen it work in more ways than those 2. I invite you to come down a kayak trip with me on this river for its run through tulsa when it settles back down and your viewpoint will change. Seriously, e-mail me and I'll make it happen.
Swake:Another would be that we actually lessen the flow during drought periods to keep Keystone Lake full. The river left alone would actually have water in it during the summer, that low flow that we are so worried about is already not a natural occurrence.Sorry, but that is not true. They do nothing of the sort. The corps lessens flow for reasons other than that. One relates to demands by South West Power. They sell the electricity made by the turbines in the dam. If there is no demand for it they don't open the gates because it costs money to do so. SWP funds the operation of that dam and has influence. Another would be for downstream concerns relating to construction, testing, safety or rescue. They don't even take orders here. If the office in Kansas says dry up Keystone lake, they will. But generally they try to achieve some balance between all parts of the chain of dams to make everyone happy.
Also untrue is your contention that the river would naturally have water in it during the summer without the dam and its operation. Ludicrous. It would look pretty much the same. A small channel of constantly running water with fuller flows in spring/fall and runoff from summer rains. It didn't flood every year Swake. I played on the sand bars of that river before the dam was built. It was dry/wet/dry all summer.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Speaking of the river, I trust everyone can agree that TRASH in the river is ugly, sometimes dangerous, and always bad for either a natural or artificial river. On two occasions I have had the privilege of seeing needles in the river (one handed to be by my then 6 year old son *:CRINGE:*), but the tons of old iron pipe, broken glass, and tires can be just as hazardous. Currently, a walk on the sand bars or banks of the Arkansas River closely resembles a scene from Mad Max with old tires, rusted metal and broken and half buried who-knows-whats sticking out.
In that light, I'm glad to see that some of the Sinclair fine ($500,000) is going to be used to get crap OUT of the river. I'm not sure how far that money will go with the government spending it, but with $500,000 a volunteer based organization could get a crap ton done (disposal of tires and old oil drums IS expensive). Perhaps even use some of the money to put grates on storm sewer inflows to the river that are the source of most of the trash.
Also, every time I go to the river to let my dogs romp around on the sand bars I wish I had a backpack for one of them so I could pick up some of the trash and make her carry it around (damn spaz dog anyway). Does anyone know of such a product? It would be helpful on many hikes or even for walks around the neighborhood - plus it'd be funny.
and FINALLY, in my most humble of opinion anyone that doesnt go to the river to do something as it is at least once a month should pretty well drop out of this conversation.
You're attitude warms my heart. I am glad you see this stuff too. Would be nice to organize a clean up effort because I doubt that the $500k RPA got will go in that direction. We could start by having the sand companies take responsibility and clean up what they left behind then have the state find out what bridge contractors left concrete and steel behind and have them clean it up.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I posted this under the development forum earlier this week.
I spent last Saturday on the north bank of the Oklahoma river at the Chesapeake Boat House watching a rowing regatta. There was litteraly tons of trash between the rowing docks and bank, including full trash bags. Back in the cove to the west side of the boat house, there were tires, unidentified flotsam, cups, about anything you could imagine.
Just nasty.
Do they have trash cans near the boat house? I spent a few hours on Zink lake a week ago before the rains and was amazed by the coffee cups, plastic bags and such building up along the banks. The high flow washed it all away (to Jenks!) But listen, go up to Swiftwater park just below the Keystone Dam and watch the fishermen throwing trash into the river. Food, bags, bags of puppies, etc. Sadly its a mixture of characters from Deliverance, Cheech & Chong movies and probable illegals that are doing it. Different cultures values. It is a point source for trash as well as the bridges and vagrant villages along the banks. My point is there is like 1 trash can for the whole area and unless it was chained and monitored IT would be thrown into the river. There needs to be a ticket writing campaign for littering at these source points to stop this.
I thought the major use of water from Keystone in the summer was to keep the navigation channel 10' full. That is 100% man made and much prettier river than the Arkansas. The Arkansas represents the last real river before the desert Southwest, unfortunately Keystone, the navigation channel, and other diversions have pretty well ended most of its flow. Though I would still take transportation, irrigation, and a secure water supply over a natural flowing river.
Guess I'm one of the sheep. Baa.
Out of curiosity, if we were to leave the river in its natural state, who is going to insure the 200,000 or so people that live in its natural flood plane? Tulsa is only here because we screwed with the river, the RR, oilmen, and Route 66 chose Tulsa because we ruined the rivers natural state by firming up the shoreline bridging it.
I guess I just dont understand the 'keep it natural' argument. It isnt natural now, shall we revert? Is it a money issue, you dont want to pay for it? Do you think trash covered sand bars look more appealing than a small lake area? Are you afraid water will encourage development in the river area and want to avoid that?
I just dont get it. 9/10 people would rather go to a park overlooking Zink lake than the sand bars out from River Crossing.
Im not trying to be a jerk here. Please explain to me why you are against low water dams.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I thought the major use of water from Keystone in the summer was to keep the navigation channel 10' full. That is 100% man made and much prettier river than the Arkansas. The Arkansas represents the last real river before the desert Southwest, unfortunately Keystone, the navigation channel, and other diversions have pretty well ended most of its flow. Though I would still take transportation, irrigation, and a secure water supply over a natural flowing river.
Guess I'm one of the sheep. Baa.
Out of curiosity, if we were to leave the river in its natural state, who is going to insure the 200,000 or so people that live in its natural flood plane? Tulsa is only here because we screwed with the river, the RR, oilmen, and Route 66 chose Tulsa because we ruined the rivers natural state by firming up the shoreline bridging it.
I guess I just dont understand the 'keep it natural' argument. It isnt natural now, shall we revert? Is it a money issue, you dont want to pay for it? Do you think trash covered sand bars look more appealing than a small lake area? Are you afraid water will encourage development in the river area and want to avoid that?
I just dont get it. 9/10 people would rather go to a park overlooking Zink lake than the sand bars out from River Crossing.
Im not trying to be a jerk here. Please explain to me why you are against low water dams.
Let me start by saying that a better description of this river is that "it is not as natural as it once was". Is anything though? That being said it can be restored to a more natural state which in my opinion would be just as cost/benefit advantageous as building dams with no purpose other than to be eyecandy for commuters on Riverside or shopping center denizens. The initial outlay, the potential for future disaster and the maintenance necessary to make it a good investment just don't add up in my estimation. There are better plans that have been brought forward, there are better plans that will never be seen, there are better improvements along the river that could bring a better return. The momentum is clearly for the blunt instrument approach however.
I don't advocate bringing down the Keystone Dam although its lifespan is limited and near. But there is a very good reason that it was one of the last of the big dams constructed. Environmentally, there are better ways to control flooding and more cost effective ways. If there were no Keystone, the multiple low water dams would make sense and do less damage ecologically.
What would I like to see?
First, clean out all the oil field, sand mining and bridge building debris.
Second, install filtering systems into runoff drains and monitor discharges.
Third, open some of the older tributaries that once drained into the river that builders gleefully paved over and develop them with mercantilism in mind.
Fourth, re-model the Zink lake dam to include more gates and insist that any new dams create little hindrance to water flow.
Fifth, budget for dredging on a continuous basis so that any investment in the river is protected.
Sixth, systematically encourage use OF the river, not just on its banks. This would include educating people on the value of rivers of this kind, how they work, how the wildlife thrive because of them, their geological history etc.
This would be a start. Chances don't look good though with the prevailing attitudes.
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/stevntulsa/sandbarboys2.jpg
(http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s300/stevntulsa/sandbarboys2.jpg)
Cannon,
It's hard to express complex ideas in the abbreviated language of a forum but, let me try to add to what Waterboy has already said.
Tulsans suffer from low self esteem combined with a bad case of provincialism. Folks in the provinces have bought into the idea that we are inferior to those who reside in the various capitals and urban areas of our nation. We want to ape their actions.
Now to escape the blinders of provincialism you have to learn to respect yourself and say, hey, what we have here is unique and special and it is every bit as deserving as any urban asset. It doesn't look like Kansas City or St. Louis or Dallas. It looks like Tulsa and we celebrate Tulsa.
Why would a convention locate in Tulsa because it has a watered down version of San Antonio's River Walk. If they want River Walk they go to the source – San Antonio.
We need to identify what we have that no one else has and then bring our native gifts to fruition.
For example: Tulsa as an abundance of Native Americans. More so that most of the country. If folks want to see Native Americans or explore their culture this is one of the few places in the United States to do that.
Now folks have cited Zink Lake. What we have not seen, and where we suffer from lack of familiarity, is parkland abutting a restored section of the river. With the right planning and marketing, such a site would be more appealing than anything we've seen. Think Tall Grass Prairie. Think restored Bay Area Wet Lands. Then think about the metal shed they call the Casino down at what is it 91st and Riverside. Imagine metal sheds lining the river with tacky trinkets for sale. Imagine endless parking lots for the sheep to park their vehicles and unload their wallets. Think about local rich folks destroying the river so that they can make a buck and continue to maintain their mansions over near Utica Square.
People are struggling with this because the call to take the river back to natural state has the ring of truth. Swake has logged more posts on this thread than anything else in recent memory because he smells a possible obstacle for wish to improve on God's creation and make Tulsa look like something he saw elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
QuoteOriginally posted by Conan71
Do they have trash cans near the boat house? I spent a few hours on Zink lake a week ago before the rains and was amazed by the coffee cups, plastic bags and such building up along the banks. The high flow washed it all away (to Jenks!) But listen, go up to Swiftwater park just below the Keystone Dam and watch the fishermen throwing trash into the river. Food, bags, bags of puppies, etc. Sadly its a mixture of characters from Deliverance, Cheech & Chong movies and probable illegals that are doing it. Different cultures values. It is a point source for trash as well as the bridges and vagrant villages along the banks. My point is there is like 1 trash can for the whole area and unless it was chained and monitored IT would be thrown into the river. There needs to be a ticket writing campaign for littering at these source points to stop this.
There was a reply on my post to the development forum that this was an anomaly. I will say that OKC had gotten about 4" of rain last week and it was very windy (what else is new?).
They did have cardboard WM boxes with trash bags in them for the meet. I walked up and down the river between the Byers street bridge and the I-35 south-bound bridge and don't recall seeing any permanent trash cans, but I wasn't looking for them either.
This was their big "season opening" weekend at the Chesapeake with free kayak, dragon boat, and rowing demos/rides and other assorted activities which brought out a really good crowd. I was just surprised there had been no effort to pick up as much of the trash as possible. Sad to say the five major memories in order I have of last Saturday were:
- the trash
- how my daughter and her boyfriend placed in their races
- the trash
- the spectacular boat house and their shell inventory
- the trash
I guess that Don't Litter commercial back in the '70's where the Indian got a sack of trash thrown at his feet, then they panned to a tear rolling down his cheek had an impact on me. My kids know better than to so much as spit a piece of gum out the window when they are riding with me.
Waterboy:
The proposals you suggest would certainly make for a healthier river, but are probably cost prohibitive. Maybe I am wrong; but opening up tributaries, filtering water into the river, and constant dredging, while valuable, would be at the expense of new trails and more parks. Its doubtful most people would be on board.
Hometown:
I have no interest in seeing more strip malls facing away from the river nor cracker barrel casinos with sprawling parking lots. I would be very interested in seeing you vision of a natural park system and I am sure I would enjoy it. However, I would also enjoy urban development along the river.
I dont want to copy San Antonio's (nor OKC) river walk. But I would very much like to see a few cafe's, shops, or other areas that abut the river. I would like to see the area from the old Route 66 bridge down Zink lake developed to some extent.
I dont want a strip mall. I would like to see more places like the rivers edge and a few actually eateries. Enough to make the river a destination so I could go there and eat, have a few drinks, AND play in the parks. Im thinking a few shops/eateries/bars spread out along that area with some actually right on the water. Another bar would certainly do well in that location, a restaurant would do well also I imagine. Add a bike shop, a disc golf store, and something else and its a nice little area.
I think it would definitely be unique. It would be low cost to the city and to the entrepreneurs (ie wouldnt require river crossing style money). Bah, I dont know. Just thinking out load.
I dont need to copy some other city, but I feel something more could or should be done with the river. As stinky as it may be.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Waterboy:
The proposals you suggest would certainly make for a healthier river, but are probably cost prohibitive. Maybe I am wrong; but opening up tributaries, filtering water into the river, and constant dredging, while valuable, would be at the expense of new trails and more parks. Its doubtful most people would be on board.
Two of those ideas were embraced by the Channels proposal. They didn't seem prohibitive in cost when they were discussed. It was noted that it would be a given for any development on the river.
I thought the tributaries plan was my original thought. But alas, it seems it has been considered for quite some time. It may be cheaper to restore them than to continue dealing with the flooding in these areas. A creek like the one that runs through Brookside is begging for better use.
As a side note, do you think the things you want to see are any different than what we wanted for the last 27 years? Yet we have one strange little bar and nothing else. Tons of money spent, and a hardly used amphitheatre. You think it will be different this time? Why? Certainly not v2025. Very little of that is for the river. Kaiser will go broke doing it all himself. No its not the money. But there's always hopin', and prayin', and...oh wait a minute, that was Dusty Springfield. never mind.
Like I said, faux rules...nature drools.
My feel is that what is going to happen is a low water dam of some sort in the area near downtown.
( Most likely not a large one that goes all the way to sand springs. If they and jenks want one have a dual vote. the residents of the city And the county must pass it, in other words if the people of sand springs fail the low water dam in their part, but the county vote passes it, then the dam wont happen. If the county fails it and the city passes it, the city can pay for it themselves but the county won't. Same for Jenks. )
Frankly I think each city should pay for their own dam, support it, deal with it, etc. and leave a county vote out of it. Of course each dam would have to meet the corps and incogs approval.
I think that the Branson Landing guy is chomping at the bit to do something in that area and the Mayor doesn't want to lose the opportunity to have it happen. Hence the holding off of the zoning thing. Get that development going, then zone. Otherwise, well we know how committees, and such can take forever and developers lose interest and then we will indeed likely see what we have always seen. Zilch.
and again... Developing the river to me doesnt mean developing the whoooole thing within Tulsa. 3 zones, developed, park, and conservation. The smallest being developed. Nobody completely happy, but everyone gets a good part of what they want.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
My feel is that what is going to happen is a low water dam of some sort in the area near downtown.
( Most likely not a large one that goes all the way to sand springs. If they and jenks want one have a dual vote. the residents of the city And the county must pass it, in other words if the people of sand springs fail the low water dam in their part, but the county vote passes it, then the dam wont happen. If the county fails it and the city passes it, the city can pay for it themselves but the county won't. Same for Jenks. )
Frankly I think each city should pay for their own dam, support it, deal with it, etc. and leave a county vote out of it. Of course each dam would have to meet the corps and incogs approval.
I think that the Branson Landing guy is chomping at the bit to do something in that area and the Mayor doesn't want to lose the opportunity to have it happen. Hence the holding off of the zoning thing. Get that development going, then zone. Otherwise, well we know how committees, and such can take forever and developers lose interest and then we will indeed likely see what we have always seen. Zilch.
and again... Developing the river to me doesnt mean developing the whoooole thing within Tulsa. 3 zones, developed, park, and conservation. The smallest being developed. Nobody completely happy, but everyone gets a good part of what they want.
Um, there IS a dam near downtown, at 31st.
And a countywide vote has been passed for two dams (2025). The needed federal matching funds have been delayed by Corp spending on it's failures with regard to Katrina and Levees.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
My feel is that what is going to happen is a low water dam of some sort in the area near downtown.
( Most likely not a large one that goes all the way to sand springs. If they and jenks want one have a dual vote. the residents of the city And the county must pass it, in other words if the people of sand springs fail the low water dam in their part, but the county vote passes it, then the dam wont happen. If the county fails it and the city passes it, the city can pay for it themselves but the county won't. Same for Jenks. )
Frankly I think each city should pay for their own dam, support it, deal with it, etc. and leave a county vote out of it. Of course each dam would have to meet the corps and incogs approval.
I think that the Branson Landing guy is chomping at the bit to do something in that area and the Mayor doesn't want to lose the opportunity to have it happen. Hence the holding off of the zoning thing. Get that development going, then zone. Otherwise, well we know how committees, and such can take forever and developers lose interest and then we will indeed likely see what we have always seen. Zilch.
and again... Developing the river to me doesnt mean developing the whoooole thing within Tulsa. 3 zones, developed, park, and conservation. The smallest being developed. Nobody completely happy, but everyone gets a good part of what they want.
Um, there IS a dam near downtown, at 31st.
And a countywide vote has been passed for two dams (2025). The needed federal matching funds have been delayed by Corp spending on it's failures with regard to Katrina and Levees.
My bad, I didn't realize the lake extended between 21st and 11th where the new development will be.
But I heard that the 12mill that was voted for was not even enough to build one dam. So how could 24mill, adding the federal matching funds, build 2?
And if the mayor is concerned with "putting water in the river" so development can get started, where would the other dams be built? I assume she isnt talking about Jenks and Sand Springs. Is there some other possible development going in along another part of the river in Tulsa thats making her want to rush that?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
My feel is that what is going to happen is a low water dam of some sort in the area near downtown.
( Most likely not a large one that goes all the way to sand springs. If they and jenks want one have a dual vote. the residents of the city And the county must pass it, in other words if the people of sand springs fail the low water dam in their part, but the county vote passes it, then the dam wont happen. If the county fails it and the city passes it, the city can pay for it themselves but the county won't. Same for Jenks. )
Frankly I think each city should pay for their own dam, support it, deal with it, etc. and leave a county vote out of it. Of course each dam would have to meet the corps and incogs approval.
I think that the Branson Landing guy is chomping at the bit to do something in that area and the Mayor doesn't want to lose the opportunity to have it happen. Hence the holding off of the zoning thing. Get that development going, then zone. Otherwise, well we know how committees, and such can take forever and developers lose interest and then we will indeed likely see what we have always seen. Zilch.
and again... Developing the river to me doesnt mean developing the whoooole thing within Tulsa. 3 zones, developed, park, and conservation. The smallest being developed. Nobody completely happy, but everyone gets a good part of what they want.
Um, there IS a dam near downtown, at 31st.
And a countywide vote has been passed for two dams (2025). The needed federal matching funds have been delayed by Corp spending on it's failures with regard to Katrina and Levees.
My bad, I didn't realize the lake extended between 21st and 11th where the new development will be.
But I heard that the 12mill that was voted for was not even enough to build one dam. So how could 24mill, adding the federal matching funds, build 2?
And if the mayor is concerned with "putting water in the river" so development can get started, where would the other dams be built? I assume she isnt talking about Jenks and Sand Springs. Is there some other possible development going in along another part of the river in Tulsa thats making her want to rush that?
There are two dams that made it through the INCOG process. One just South of the Creek Expressway in Jenks and the other just below highway 97 bridge in Sand Springs. What the hold up is on funding varies according to who you talk to, but few believe the excuse that Katrina is to blame. The corps approval is only related to impact on the river flows not infrastructure and such. Most believe it is held up by the focus on the arena, downtown and tax collections. Even if the money was available the planning is not far enough along. Riverwalk tenants expected it to be built a year ago but in reality it may be as much as 5yrs or more in the future. Lots of issues to deal with including Indian participation.
The mayor's remarks about putting water in the river are designed to spur more ideas than the dams. The Oklahoma river is an example of taking a moist river bed and finding ways to put water into it. I think they ended up using wells and pumps along with some diversions. Anyway, in the one chance meeting I had with her it was the only point I was able to make. My thoughts are that the Corps simply hasn't considered putting more water in the river during low flow periods because it isn't their mission. They are military and will not stray from that mission unless directed by chain of command. So the answer is to rewrite that mission to include us. She has the skills along with Savage, the governor and Inhofe to do that. Direct communication then is established and a working relationship can be forged to put water in during festivals, competitions etc.
Anyway, if you suburbans want your plasticized pond on the river now Swake, I suggest you follow the same arrogant behavior that the Jenks mayor and his private bridge building buddies are employing. Privatize the whole thing! Allow the Bridge Partners to become Lowater Dam Partners. The mayor can condemn the land on the Tulsa side of the river and take it by eminent domain, tell the Indians to lawyer up and then lease it to the partners who will build it and take a percentage of the surrounding development revenues for ten years. Of course the city of Tulsa will have to provide rescue and security while increased tax revenues go to Jenks. If Tulsa shows any hesitance, threaten to sue them. Thats what good neighbors do.
I say that tongue in cheek, but nothing would surprise me anymore.
Frankly I dont see why she would give a danged about Jenks or Sand Springs. I sure dont. The only reason those were thrown in was to get their support on the vote. I know its the proper thing to do to help them work on it and all, but those and your notion of finding away to use pumps, diversions, get the corps, or whatever to get more water in the river, should in no way have impacted the zoning process. I mean why should it?
So what about my guess that she stopped the "zoning" process in order to allow a developer to get started soon versus after the zoning was done? And the talk about the water was to indeed get something done soon, not in 5 or more years so that this developer wouldn't be building in front of a sand bar.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Frankly I dont see why she would give a danged about Jenks or Sand Springs. I sure dont. The only reason those were thrown in was to get their support on the vote. I know its the proper thing to do to help them work on it and all, but those and your notion of finding away to use pumps, diversions, get the corps, or whatever to get more water in the river, should in no way have impacted the zoning process. I mean why should it?
So what about my guess that she stopped the "zoning" process in order to allow a developer to get started soon versus after the zoning was done? And the talk about the water was to indeed get something done soon, not in 5 or more years so that this developer wouldn't be building in front of a sand bar.
Remember, the v2025 money was a regional vote. So her interest is a left over from the LaFortune view. But since very little of it was for the river I agree with you. Why would we care? No money was set aside for their construction and the money for preliminary planning is already spent so fund it on your own. The privatization may already be planned.
As far as the zoning A, I couldn't say why. Might be the county's effort to make a regional river authority slowed the momentum or like you say, it could be to allow a developer to start before the rules are set.