Water in the Arkansas

[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?

[swake]

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.

[waterboy]

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.

[grahambino]

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.  

[AMP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence

Law of Unitended Consequence

[swake]

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.

[waterboy]

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.

[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.

--

[waterboy]

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.

[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.

[waterboy]

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.

[Hometown]

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.

[TheArtist]

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.

[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.

[waterboy]

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.