The 1986 Arkansas River Flood was a first test of the new stormwater management program. It also served as a reminder of the finite protection of Keystone Dam. Between September and October 1986, Keystone Reservoir filled to capacity, forcing the Corps to release water at the rate of 310,000 cubic feet per second. Downstream flooding was inevitable. At Tulsa, a private westbank levee failed, causing $1.3 million in damages to 64 buildings. The city fielded its hazard-mitigation team and cleared 13 substantially damaged structures.
The 1984 Memorial Day Flood, the worst in the city's history, was Tulsa's watershed point.
After a muggy Sunday afternoon, a stalled cool front produced some 15 inches of mid-night rain, centered over Mingo Creek but also extending across most of the city. The results were disastrous.
The 1984 Memorial Day Flood killed 14, injured 288, damaged or destroyed nearly 7,000 buildings, and left $180 million in damages ($576 million in 2006 dollars). Mingo Creek alone accounted for $125 million of the damages.
The newly elected mayor and street commissioner had been in office for only 19 days, but both knew the issues well. In the darkest hours of the city's worst disaster, they pledged to make their response reduce the likelihood that such a disaster would ever be repeated.
Before daylight, they had assembled the city's first Flood Hazard Mitigation Team to develop the city's strategy.
Within days, a new approach to Tulsa flood response and recovery was born.
As ultimately completed, the program included relocation of 300 flooded homes and a 228-pad mobile home park, $10.5 million in flood control works, and $2.1 million for master drainage plans. The total capital program topped $30 million, mostly from local capital sources, flood insurance claim checks, and federal funds.
The worst flood within the past 20 years in Bixby occurred between Sept. 29, 1986, and Oct. 4 of that same year, when a torrential downpour dropped about 20 inches of water in Tulsa County.
To make room for massive amounts of water upstream, the Corps discharged 310,000 cubic feet of water per second from the Keystone Dam.
According to reports, Bixby had had the second highest number of homes damaged in Tulsa County, next to Sand Springs. In Bixby, 385 residences were damaged, and 19 homes were destroyed.
At the peak of the 1986 flood, 70 percent of the town was under water.
A contributing factor to floods in Bixby in recent decades has been the increase in residential and commercial development in the Bixby area.
"You take bare land, the water will permeate into the soil, but when you make rooftops, concrete, streets ... then all that water has to go someplace -- it's collected somewhere, and the Arkansas River has been the basin," Coffey said.
***********************************************
The proponents of the Arkansas River plan would like Tulsa Taxpayers to believe 300 year floods only happen every 300 years when in fact 300 year level floods happen quite regularly in the Tulsa Metro area -- this is due to our geographic location along the edge of MESO storm boundaries -- all the planning and construction in the world won't change the facts -- we are prone to floods -- we barely dodged a bullet this year as Keystone lake went to 107% capacity and ran OVER the flood control gates -- continuing construction in the floodplain really isn't a wise plan --- but lets spend the TAX dollars so we can do it all over again in ten or 12 years.
The latte cafe probably need poontoons so it will float as should any business/construct developed in a flood plain.
The water never went over the gates at Keystone this summer. I was out there every day with my wife taking the dog for a walk and though the lake was getting full it never topped the gates.
Don't know where you were BUT at 0800 hours on July 6 the elevation officially was 755.15 and crested at 755.22, the top of the flood control pool is 754 -- didn't last long as discharge was increased.
It has taken all summer to reduce flood control capacity to less than 5% of flood pool - we still are not at normal conservation pool.
According to the "experts" this event wasn't a 300 year event -- but you can bet USACE can't control all floods --
Are you suggesting that the low water dams will create more 300 year flooding scenarios or that they will somehow affect the weather?
-or-
Do you have concrete knowledge that these dams will cause more flooding in case of a similar disaster?
-or-
Is this a scare tactic to get people to vote no based on blind fear?
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
Is this a scare tactic to get people to vote no based on blind fear?
It's Tony. Read the rest of his posts.
NONE of the above -- I merely point out facts what people decide is up to them -- The Arkansas is a braided prairie river prone to flooding even with flood control -- will additional dams cause more flooding? -- I think in a big event they would be irrelevant (well the increased proposed elevation at Sand Springs may be relevant to Sand Springs) -- the proponents would like those who have not been through these events to believe otherwise --
Just pointing out that building next to a river has its own hazards and drains on the US taxpayer.
Just for some perspective average daily discharge at the height of the flood this year was contained to less than 80,000CFS (100 year flood) now imagine FOUR times that amount of water coming down the river -- all the trails will be washed away as will all the planned riverfront development -- that is a waste in my view. If you believe the Eyore proponents our weather will get more extreme in the next few years (I for one do not subscribe to man caused global warming)
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
NONE of the above -- I merely point out facts what people decide is up to them -- The Arkansas is a braided prairie river prone to flooding even with flood control -- will additional dams cause more flooding? -- I think in a big event they would be irrelevant (well the increased proposed elevation at Sand Springs may be relevant to Sand Springs) -- the proponents would like those who have not been through these events to believe otherwise --
Just pointing out that building next to a river has its own hazards and drains on the US taxpayer.
Just for some perspective average daily discharge at the height of the flood this year was contained to less than 80,000CFS (100 year flood) now imagine FOUR times that amount of water coming down the river -- all the trails will be washed away as will all the planned riverfront development -- that is a waste in my view. If you believe the Eyore proponents our weather will get more extreme in the next few years (I for one do not subscribe to man caused global warming)
None of the trails were washed away in '88, why would they be in a new event of that size? And, an event of that size is very unlikely as the corp learned from that event and that was evident this year. And lastly, in Jenks riverfront developments are built with the foundations a couple of feet higher than the high water mark of the '88 flood level, so it would take a lot more than the 300,000 cfs to flood them, I'm sure Tulsa will build in the same way.
No there wasn't anything washed away in 1988 -- nor would there have been[:D]
Keystone nor the corps can control 20 inches of rain in a twenty four hour period -- the point is we keep doing the same old thing expecting different results -- INSANITY
you're not accounting for the bottleneck effect of the dams ... when you have a higher obstacle placed in a river or just a big rock for instance ... the water is restricted somewhat more than if the river was open and unrestricted ... with less volume being able to escape from the bank down to the top of the dam then a bad flood will be even worse up river from the dam as there's less volume going to be able to go through. just like in a small gutter say 1 ft wide and it's flowing to capacity ... place your hand or a rock that obstructs half or just 1/4 of it's flow and the 1 ft wide gutter will then overflow ahead of the obstruction. say that if the river is capable of handling 280,000 cfps and just stay within it's banks at that level and you restrict 1/4 of it then you now have 70,000 cfps that has no place to go but over the banks and out into the public areas around the river. It's likely going to be ristricted by a lot more than 1/4 at the sand springs dam if they're going to hold enough water in there for low flow periods. that right there is just simple math. the only way to make the river flow as much water as it currently does without running over the banks is to increase the width of the river by the same amount that you've restricted it ... if your dam is blocking 1/4 of the river's volume ... like if the banks are 10 ft high and you build a dam on it that's 2.5 ft high the only way that it can flow as freely as it did before the dam is to widen the river by 1/4 so if it's currently about 1000 ft wide you'd have to increase it's width by 250 ft in order to handle as much water as it did before the 2.5 ft dam went in ... but it's not likely that the dams will be so small as 2.5 ft ... they're likely going to be at least as tall as the zink dam and the sand springs dam will have to be a lot taller. with the dams in place the flooding damage will be a lot worse.
july: 6 755.15 754.76 1714656 10158 61882 0.160 49350 0.03 0.11
I'll be damed, it was over the flood pool. not sure if that means overflow or not, but it was +1 foot.
Anyway, Nearly all of Jenks and Bixby are in the flood plain. The refineries are in the plain. The power plants. Everything along riverside drive is. Down stream town after town is in the plain.
You can not live your life in fear of the worst case scenario. Sooner or later everything near water is going to get flooded, everything in an Earthquake zone will get shaken, and everything in Oklahoma will get hit by a tornado.. sooner or later. It might be a good reason not to build a nuclear power plant there or a munitions plant... but its a really silly reason not to build parks there.
Actually the Jenks Riverwalk is designed with the expectation of a flood breaching the banks. The Parking lots in back are designed to purposely become a water channel. The new Condos will have parking underneath. Thats also why the new casino is built so far above ground. The first level of the entire casino is a parking garage so that when the area floods it will not do any harm to the actual casino floor.
Here's a question I have not seen asked. What happens to the living river part when we do have a monsoon season like this summer? Seems like that would scotch any use of the water for a couple of months which is one of the attractions to some voters. Would it be back functional with flows/level where they are now?
I'm still highly skeptical of this concept since I remember Zink Lake being touted as a public recreation lake and that never panned out.
Flood "control" in a FLOOD plain has allowed the building inside of that plain - there are Hundreds if not THOUSANDS of lives lost every year, US wide -Billions of dollars in property damage (see New Orleans) BECAUSE such flood "control" has allowed a FALSE sense of security-- yet we keep on building back up to river and creek banks. Mother nature has a way of over coming the best laid plans of engineers -- Why do we continue to ignore this fact?
A higher elevation dam at Sand Springs SHOULD be a genuine concern for those residents who live above the dam site -- I would expect their flood insurance would go up and property values to go down as a result of a changing Federal Flood boundary -- something to consider for those residents ---
Its starting to smell like you do not like the proposal so you will find any excuse to belittle it.
Here is some really real data:
http://ahps.srh.noaa.gov/ahps2/period.php?wfo=tsa&gage=tlso2&view=1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1&toggles=10,7,8,2,9,15,6
Highest stage ever was in 1986, next closest was in 1923 - nearly 3 feet lower and before dam control was implemented (which would have reduced it further). Your notion of catastrophic flooding on a regular basis is simply unfounded. At least historically speaking.
HMMM I just pointed out TWO damaging NON-controlled floods within TWO years of each other --- If you haven't noticed lately our weather is swinging between EXTREMES at the present epoch.
The CORPS control what they CAN -- there are plenty of weather extremes BEYOND their control --
I point out what INCOG has NOT addressed BEFORE the public -- Plan for the Worst and Hope for the best --
I agree DISASTERS will happen -- why exacerbate a known PROBLEM ? Why should my INSURANCE rates go up as a result of building inside a flood plain ? Just a few of the questions I would ask.
Shall we move Saint Louis?
What of DC, Manhattan, and Los Angles?
What do you CAPITALIZE random words?
San Francisco is in one of the most fault prone areas. Seattle is near volcanic activity. Miami will get hit repeatedly with Hurricanes. Tulsa is directly in line with the most tornado prone latitude and in the correction longitude. Lets all move to Arizona, nearly disaster free (except drought).
Or... we could use common sense and realize that flooding can be planned for and designed around. Your argument is better suited for moving all of Bixy and Jenks and a good portion of Tulsa than it is an argument against building some trails and parks along the river. Damnit! My bike path is all muddy.
The more zealous and reactionary you become, the weaker your argument gets. Keep ranting, I think you are 2 posts from losing all credibility.
You're right. Time to dig up everything within a mile of the river and move it back a safe distance. I sure won't walk my dogs near it anymore or jog or allow people to bike along it or let their kids play on the swings.
That river is a death trap, steer clear.
Questions not raised, are problems not overcome -
I am merely doing the same thing you proponents of this plan are -- only the "facts" are backed by study and printed history -- not "revisionist double speak" ala the "Arkansas is not a braided prairie river"
The adversary slings enough mud that sticks to a political opponent-
Arkansas River Mud is particularly sticky[}:)]
Not to marginalize your disagreement you are entitled just as I am [:D]
What is wrong with the current system -- we can agree to disagree in a cordial manner, or we can get down in the mud -- you don't have to agree nor would I expect those who have already made up their mind.
As a couple of hundred other posters on this forum have pointed out before me -- this PROPOSAL is a back room deal with no reasonable opposition allowed.
I'm kind of curious as to the hydrological effects that a large, inhabitable island being built in the middle of the river will have. If the dams will slow the flow and create a "back up" problem for the river, what will this island in the pictures used to sale this plan do in restricting the width of the river?
quote:
Originally posted by Fishin
I'm kind of curious as to the hydrological effects that a large, inhabitable island being built in the middle of the river will have. If the dams will slow the flow and create a "back up" problem for the river, what will this island in the pictures used to sale this plan do in restricting the width of the river?
That's the Channels...that idea is gone for a lot of reasons, yours among them, I believe. The development is now on the banks of the River. Man, the pro river guys are truly terrible at pointing out this is not the Channels. Why is that? Do they think that this confusion works for them?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Fishin
I'm kind of curious as to the hydrological effects that a large, inhabitable island being built in the middle of the river will have. If the dams will slow the flow and create a "back up" problem for the river, what will this island in the pictures used to sale this plan do in restricting the width of the river?
That's the Channels...that idea is gone for a lot of reasons, yours among them, I believe. The development is now on the banks of the River. Man, the pro river guys are truly terrible at pointing out this is not the Channels. Why is that? Do they think that this confusion works for them?
This is the kind of campaign you get with haste and a media willing to help sell the plan instead of looking objectively at the issue.
If you google "Tulsa river development" the Channels plan is the third down. That's a good reason why people on a computer could be confused.
I apologize for my lack of "being up to speed."
I hadn't heard much about the island lately, but did see the picture in the background of one of the supporters.
It seems that we now have one dam that is providing the full lake effect that could be taken advantage of. Why can't we make better use of that? Maybe the wrong people own that part?
I keep hearing people not liking this plan and complain about building Islands in the river. There are no islands in this plan. How can they be for or against it if they obviously havent done ANY research on what is being voted on?
However as one of my friends pointed out today..." All I have seen are cute little kids saying vote yes. Why dont they show us what they are wanting us to vote for? " A lot of people arent going to go digging around, like us crazies on here, in newspapers and online to find out what this is about.
quote:
Originally posted by Fishin
I apologize for my lack of "being up to speed."
I hadn't heard much about the island lately, but did see the picture in the background of one of the supporters.
It seems that we now have one dam that is providing the full lake effect that could be taken advantage of. Why can't we make better use of that? Maybe the wrong people own that part?
No apology necessary. It's the pro river people that seemed to have dropped the ball on the informational side of this.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I keep hearing people not liking this plan and complain about building Islands in the river. There are no islands in this plan. How can they be for or against it if they obviously havent done ANY research on what is being voted on?
However as one of my friends pointed out today..." All I have seen are cute little kids saying vote yes. Why dont they show us what they are wanting us to vote for? " A lot of people arent going to go digging around, like us crazies on here, in newspapers and online to find out what this is about.
I thought the Sunday World made a pretty good effort at answering questions, showing the plan and its effects. Stuff you can't do to well on TV, Radio. Since the web is also fragmented it is difficult to show other than on the INCOG site which is not well known to the public.
One of the limitations of an evolving digital age is the loss of the local newspaper as the one source of information that you can refer to at anytime, anyplace, take to work and pass around. In other words, the loss of an informed public and the rise of a manipulated public. I do go on...
So is the moral of the story that if and when there's another 300 year flood, every Riverside establishment should be required to have enough lifeboats for every patron?
quote:
Originally posted by HazMatCFO
So is the moral of the story that if and when there's another 300 year flood, every Riverside establishment should be required to have enough lifeboats for every patron?
HA! Only if they are stupid enough to go down there after there has been a flood warning saying the river levels will rise in the area above flood stage. The Arkansas River doesnt flood "suddenly". Certain creeks and tributaries may, but not the river. Any flood on the Arkansas in Tulsa will have many hours if not days of beforehand warning. It takes about 8 hours for the water to get to Tulsa from Keystone Dam. Water can only flow so fast. Even in the last flood with the lousy way they managed it they knew when and how much the Arkansas in Tulsa was going to rise. You could watch it on the news and listen to the projections. "Tomorrow at 630 it will be this high, by 830, this high, etc. Some friends and I from out of town went down to some apartments by the river and watched the water rise. They asked me if this was what people in Tulsa did for entertainment. I said sometimes, but more often we chase tornadoes lol. Bird Creek was one of the places that caught people off guard during a heavy rain and flash flood conditions.
Depends on what you define as SUDDENLY -- the more volume Keystone is forced to release the faster the water rises -- in an emergency situation such as the 310,000 CFS release rate in 1984 , you won't get much warning during inundation -- no time to sandbag or prepare for property damage --
and most likely if you live upstream of the proposed Sand Springs dam (depends on if or whether corps will make them expand the flood basin elevation or put up higher levees as a result of placing such a structure) such scenario would give you less than an hour to evacuate and prepare before low lying areas flood -- all the businesses and homes on the low side of elevated 412 hwy would be underwater, probably deeper than they were in 1984.
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
Depends on what you define as SUDDENLY -- the more volume Keystone is forced to release the faster the water rises -- in an emergency situation such as the 310,000 CFS release rate in 1984 , you won't get much warning during inundation -- no time to sandbag or prepare for property damage --
and most likely if you live upstream of the proposed Sand Springs dam (depends on if or whether corps will make them expand the flood basin elevation or put up higher levees as a result of placing such a structure) such scenario would give you less than an hour to evacuate and prepare before low lying areas flood -- all the businesses and homes on the low side of elevated 412 hwy would be underwater, probably deeper than they were in 1984.
People knew well in advance that they were going to have to release a lot of water at Keystone. The lake didnt just suddenly fill up either. I remember newscasters standing on the dam asking questions giving reports as the water rose in the lake. Commenting on how the dam was actually shaking and that as more projections came in it was definitely becoming clear that they were going to have to start releasing huge amounts of water. The lake didnt just suddenly fill up and then have to suddenly start releasing huge amounts of water.
I guess those who lost their lives were aware well in advance they would die in that event too.
For USACE it was an OH CRAP crowning moment !!!
I don't think you'll win this one Tony. Too many people were around. Whichever flood was the one they mistakenly read upstream flows, I believe it was the '84 flood, was the flood that caught them by surprise. Even so there was time to warn the populace.
The other one was well publicized in advance and like Artist said was an event. Those who died were not washed away down the river unawares. They drove through high water, one tried to raft the river if I remember, stayed in mobile homes etc.
Now if the dam breaks.... very little notice. Goodbye downtown Tulsa!
In tornado alley, anything with more than 5 minutes notice seem mild. There was a ton of time before the 84 flood and everyone had time to get out of the way. Not to mention Tulsa and surrounding communities have spent millions on floodwater mitigation as well as a much better understanding of keystone so the chances of past occurrences is very, very much lower.
Keep in mind the "private west bank levee" you mentioned failed because the owners had all but removed it.
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
I guess those who lost their lives were aware well in advance they would die in that event too.
For USACE it was an OH CRAP crowning moment !!!
That event from Keystone was in '86 and I do not believe there were any deaths related to it.
I personally worked the aftermath documenting the flood height along all of the rivers in eastern Oklahoma.
I stand corrected -- the 1984 flood was death related -- I don't find that in the 86 descriptions, (when Keystome dam was threatened)
Still the bottom line is -- when you obstruct a flood plain with more dams the result is the river spreads further out - unless you remediate the volume by increasing river width, OR build higher levees -- something I don't believe is included in the budgeting.
And to all those who say it can't or won't or is unlikely to happen again -- let me sell you some Arkansas river bottom real estate.
Tulsa will remain in the MESO storm boundary line and unless Vision 2025 has found an innovative way around that, it remains an UNREPORTED fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Tony
I stand corrected -- the 1984 flood was death related -- I don't find that in the 86 descriptions, (when Keystome dam was threatened)
Still the bottom line is -- when you obstruct a flood plain with more dams the result is the river spreads further out - unless you remediate the volume by increasing river width, OR build higher levees -- something I don't believe is included in the budgeting.
And to all those who say it can't or won't or is unlikely to happen again -- let me sell you some Arkansas river bottom real estate.
Tulsa will remain in the MESO storm boundary line and unless Vision 2025 has found an innovative way around that, it remains an UNREPORTED fact.
Tony,
Give it a rest.
Keystone dam was never "threatened" in 86 or this year either for that matter. Oh and Zink Lake caused no flooding, even in the 1986 flood of record.
310,000CFS in 1986 tells me USACE was running scared of something -- I won't give it a rest till your GROUP quits its ASSUMPTIONS.
it may not have been threatened but folks were very concerned then ... the dam itelf may have felt no such emotion but emotion was running fairly high when they reported the dam was shaking. now that must have been something to see and hear from atop something that big that seemed to the reporters to be actually moving. the dam itself was probably thinkin hey ... it's cool ya'll ... I got this covered but I membahs a lot of tulsans wasn't so comfortable with the situation.
"A lot of people arent going to go digging around, like us crazies on here, in newspapers and online to find out what this is about. "
Funny how doing a little research and actively becoming informed on a topic makes us "crazies" in today's age. I actually don't disagree with that perception, but I think it's just a sad commentary that there are folks who are going to vote on this proposal without ever lifting a finger to research the facts. I'm saddened.