Its a River not a Lake, Me Hearties

[waterboy]

Ah, the internet age, where everyone can be the center of attention by starting their own thread on a forum! A mixture of Warhol and McLuhan. My turn.

The new river plan is nothing if not adventurous and bold. Right up front, I'll admit that my preference is for no dams on this river at all. Because we don't really need dams, we need river flow. Being 4th in line to get that water flow, means we have to dam it up and save the flow as long as we can. Zink lake does that. But if somehow the Corps. would change its policies, these dams would be unnecessary.

The chances of that seem slim, especially if no one knows how simple that is and never asks them! So the best plan advanced so far is the Vision plan based on INCOG's work. It is based on the premise that we're dealing with a river here, not a potential lake.

And that's the key from my perspective. Its a river not a lake! You can make a Dodge truck race at LeMans but the cost is extreme, the return is likely small and there are easier ways to win the race.

Many of you may not know that my experience comes from actually operating boats on the river for three summers. Airboats, kayaks, canoes, pontoons and inflatables in this very stretch being considered. I sought out every source I could to learn its nature, researched every plan preceding this one, then successfully operated based on an understanding of its nature. Never a mishap, many thrills and an appreciation of its raw nature were my reward and anyone who rode with me. Financially I was, well, miserable.[V] Almost all my riders were visitors to the area who marveled at the pristine quality of nature so near the city. I know you find that hard to believe. I'll post some pics to show you later.

My point is that almost every element of this plan is so disruptive to the natural personality of this river and its surroundings that it should never have gotten this far. I listed some of the unseen costs on another thread. I want to make a few simple observations after having read the latest version.

  A.There isn't enough room for the islands as planned. That means they expect the 18ft dam  to expand the width of the river. This would be fine on the West side but walls will be built on the East side. But why? Is there no land available along the river? Can't we just buid those amenities along the West bank? You know that answer.

  B. Look at how the canals between the islands are positioned. They are on the downstream side protected from the current, angled slightly but to no avail. They will silt up within two years. The water will slow down and the suspended silt will settle out and fill them up. But they can be dredged you say? Why not just dredge the existing river's channel. Lot less expense than building silt producing islands, then dredging.

But these are petty items you say. Yes, but there are loads of these and together they represent what's missing from the plan which is an understanding of how a river like this works. From poorly designed loading ramps to cesspool like amphitheatre ponds we have displayed for 25 years HOW CITY FOLKS LOOK AT NATURE! We don't like no sandy rivers...lets make a lake!

Here then is the crust of the bisket. TWELVE MILES of this misunderstanding! Twelve miles of levee strengthening, twelve miles of dredging continuously, twelve miles of half-witted operators of jet boats and ski-doos. Arguments with Indian tribes over riverbed ownership and more. Much more.

So there's a bit of my hard earned insight. I know development is necessary and inevitable, I know these folks mean well and are spending their own money. But its our river and I favor plans that will acknowledge its nature and work with it. Ready for your slams.[]

PS. Here are some pics of life ON the river.

No Pic. What am I doing wrong here Mod?