News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

Water in the Arkansas

Started by Hometown, April 03, 2007, 02:13:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

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. 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.
Pitter-patter, let's get at 'er

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.
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.

cannon_fodder

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 crush grooves.

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.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

Hometown

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.


waterboy

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.


waterboy

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.

waterboy

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.

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.
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.

waterboy

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

Hometown

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.


Conan71

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.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

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.

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.
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.

waterboy

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.


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.
"When you only have two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other."-Chinese proverb. "Arts a staple. Like bread or wine or a warm coat in winter. Those who think it is a luxury have only a fragment of a mind. Mans spirit grows hungry for art in the same way h