Tulsa firm designing low water dams.

[waterboy]

The only costs I could find for the Oklahoma River dams were estimates from back in 2001 thru 2004. They budgeted 53 million dollars. The locks were based on the same system as the Panama Canal. That's 53 million for the entire 7 mile stretch with three dams and two locks including paths and connectors. There was no controversy over the inclusion of the locks. They were made expressly for river taxis which Devon oil promptly provided. I guess they didn't know about sand volleyball. They went with the boat thing.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I am pessimistic about any development of boating uses on the river. First off I don't relish private users docking their powerboats on it. We don't have the mentality for that kind of use. We don't have the administrative infrastructure. Issues of policing, licensing, safety, ecology, pollution, testing, even ownership of the river remain unresolved. As long as its easier and cheaper to ignore its usage thats what will happen. Human powered craft, perhaps, but as long as landlubber attitudes prevail here there will be no development of water activities.

Ask an engineer Artist. The cost must not be too prohibitive as OKC and tons of other communities have provided them. Of course they may not have as many bathrooms I guess. How much MORE will it cost for bathrooms, bleachers and volleyball courts? You know, those amenities so in demand by the homeless and deviates they attract?[] We can put bathrooms, bleachers and v-ball courts in any park in Tulsa, why is it so important along the river when all the great new shopping, casinos and restaurant/bars will provide them?

We both know you don't particularly care for water activities. Your remarks are akin to me asking why we spend so much public money on art museums and theatre cause so few of us visit them. This may not be your thread to comment on.

There isnt going to be any shopping or casinos at the 71st Vball courts. Those courts are used all the time, just about every day in the spring and summer there are people out there using them. On busy days it easily numbers in the hundreds. When I used to get weekly teams started with friends (havent been able to this year with the project I am working on) my friends alone would take up to 4 nets, sometimes more, thats 8 teams of 6 plus people on the sidelines. Then there were always other groups out there to boot. Its probably one of the most used sections of the park, period. There are like 3 little picnic tables and a couple porta potties. They also have large events there like the Sand Blazer Volley Ball Tournaments. BTW I bet more people use the Vball courts there, and the art museums and theaters, than use those boats.  The number of people in town that will use those things per dollar, is much better than the number of people who would use the locks per dollar. You would get a lot more bang for your buck, a lot more people using the Vball facilities, and appreciating it, than would use the locks, especially dollar per dollar. For 1  million you could probably get some great vball facilities which would serve more people than 4 or 5 million would for locks. Your always crying and *****ing about what you want, what you think is soooo important and expecting everyone to "jump on board", yet you dont give a crap and think as being stupid what others want or their opinions on the matter.

Well I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Maybe not. Your remarks are just surprising to me. Yeah, Sand Volleyball...its hot. Everyone's doing it. We can't build those courts fast enough. Maybe you could talk Kaiser into giving you guys some real bathrooms and showers.  

Here's a little insight. I talk about what I know something about, am passionate about and I can gain enjoyment from enlightening others about. There are many threads I don't participate in because of the lack of one or more of those elements. It keeps me from comparing sand volleyball to river development issues. When I err in that general principal it doesn't take long for someone to make it clear to me.

BTW, I didn't start this thread nor was I the first to note how shortsighted building dams without provision for interconnectability is.

edit: I've played sand volleyball and I love volleyball in general. I wouldn't disparage it or make recommendations other than ask Kaiser for help. But you have no problem suggesting that the Sand Springs dam be as big as possible to make sure that water is available for the downstream impoundments even though I doubt you have ever been on the upper stretches of the river to see the ecological destruction it will cause, the habitats it will change, the wildlife it will impact. Just so you can have a pretty canvas as a background for Jenks development. Think about it.

And don't talk naughty anymore...

Hey, I could care less about a dam in Jenks. Like I have pointed out, that new development there isnt even facing the river anyway. Nobody going to it will be paying a bit of attention to the river. It wont be any more noticed or any more of a backdrop than the power plant will be. The larger dam in Sand Springs sounded good IF we were going to do a dam in Jenks because it would help it from not stagnating and it would help keep water flowing more often regardless of whether there is a dam in Jenks or not. Heck at this point if you say its bad to have the higher dam in Sand Springs, lets save the money and not do it then, and lets not do the one in Jenks either.


And btw, would rather not have Kaiser do anything around 71st. In the last river plan the area he was wanting to do there he had completely eliminated the Volley Ball courts.

[bacjz00]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

The only costs I could find for the Oklahoma River dams were estimates from back in 2001 thru 2004. They budgeted 53 million dollars. The locks were based on the same system as the Panama Canal. That's 53 million for the entire 7 mile stretch with three dams and two locks including paths and connectors. There was no controversy over the inclusion of the locks. They were made expressly for river taxis which Devon oil promptly provided. I guess they didn't know about sand volleyball. They went with the boat thing.

The fact that this thread has taken a turn towards an EITHER/OR proposition between sand volleyball courts or making our inland river a navigable waterway is almost enough to make me spit out my drink!

By opening up the river to small boats and ferries to be able to transport customers (or just family) up and down the river would be TREMENDOUS.  We're not as land loving as you all might think.  Plenty of folks I know would welcome the invitation to responsibly enjoy our native river by boat.  To me, it's a no brainer to include locks in the design.  To not include them, is essentially confirming that all we're interested in is LOOKING at the river! What a waste!!

As far as volleyball goes...lol...sorry have to laugh under my breath a little as I type...those courts could be made into something very special with just a small donation from Kaiser or ONEOK or somebody.  It's not an entirely un-noble cause (is that a real word?), but it can be done for MUCH MUCH cheaper and it certainly wouldn't have nearly the impact on quality of life or development that the locks could potentially create.  Not to mention the real vision that it would show.  

I've played volleyball down at those courts before and I do enjoy the courts.  I think they could definitely be improved.  I think it would even be neat to see someone invest a little bit of money in creating a sand volleyball complex  along the river somewhere that had fixed seating and the potential to attract AVP Tour events.  Tulsa's river parks setting would be IDEAL for something like that.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by SXSW


And the southside water WWTP you mentioned, is that the facility by I-44 or the one by 71st?  It seems both are somehow connected to wastewater, and that both are sources of the "smell" people lament about it along the river.  Any way that "smell" could be lessened, or the facilities moved in the future?

I-44, that facility discharges, 71st does not, it returns to the 51st Street plant.

Yes in my opinion the adverse odor situation from both locations and can be greatly improved upon.

[TheArtist]

Ok, I am staaaarting to be convinced a little on the lock thing. Cannon makes a good point when he says that if your spending this much, a comparatively tiny amount more to add locks...  

Guess I am really trying to get what people are envisioning for the river, just what people will or can use it for.

As a mode of mass transportation.... dont think thats gonna work. Yet when Waterboy mentions the locks, ya hear someone say something about just that, "wouldnt it be nice to take a ferry from Jenks to Downtown Tulsa or Sand Springs".

Recreationally, I just keep envisioning us building these locks, then rarely seeing but a few boats on the river. There is water in zink lake but how often do you see anything there? We have had good flow and lots of water in a large part of the river this whole year, I havent seen a single boat in it.  In other words, though its a small expense comparatively, its still millions for only a few boats every now and then.  

Is it just illegal to do now? Will that change if the dams are built?

Is it just flowing too much now? Will the dams make it feel like its flowing less quickly so that during high water and low water times people will be able to use it more?

Where would these docks be? Who will own them? Will they be on city or park property?

Perhaps I am just seeing things as they are now and trying to extrapolate from that. I could see how it could work with the docks and boats with the living etc on the "island" thing. But I am not seeing how it could work if you take what we have now "parks on either side, developments that either arent really river centric or do not and arent likely to have docks,,,, and add dams and locks?

Whats the whole vision here lol? How would this, lots of people boating on the river thing, work and look with the type and height of dams they are considering building, plus locks?

[SXSW]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Ok, I am staaaarting to be convinced a little on the lock thing. Cannon makes a good point when he says that if your spending this much, a comparatively tiny amount more to add locks...  

Guess I am really trying to get what people are envisioning for the river, just what people will or can use it for.

As a mode of mass transportation.... dont think thats gonna work. Yet when Waterboy mentions the locks, ya hear someone say something about just that, "wouldnt it be nice to take a ferry from Jenks to Downtown Tulsa or Sand Springs".

Recreationally, I just keep envisioning us building these locks, then rarely seeing but a few boats on the river. There is water in zink lake but how often do you see anything there? We have had good flow and lots of water in a large part of the river this whole year, I havent seen a single boat in it.  In other words, though its a small expense comparatively, its still millions for only a few boats every now and then.  

Is it just illegal to do now? Will that change if the dams are built?

Is it just flowing too much now? Will the dams make it feel like its flowing less quickly so that during high water and low water times people will be able to use it more?

Where would these docks be? Who will own them? Will they be on city or park property?

Perhaps I am just seeing things as they are now and trying to extrapolate from that. I could see how it could work with the docks and boats with the living etc on the "island" thing. But I am not seeing how it could work if you take what we have now "parks on either side, developments that either arent really river centric or do not and arent likely to have docks,,,, and add dams and locks?

Whats the whole vision here lol? How would this, lots of people boating on the river thing, work and look with the type and height of dams they are considering building, plus locks?

The infrastructure isn't currently in place for boating on the river except for rowing on Zink Lake (and you'll see them almost everyday) and kayaking the Tulsa Wave by PSO.  There isn't a marina, docks, etc. and Zink Lake is only so big.  If there were several Zink Lakes though from Bixby to Sand Springs, which is what we're essentially creating with the low water dams, then with locks it would be possible to go from one "lake" to the next.  If that was the case I would assume then it would be practical to develop boating and the infrastructure that goes with it.  OKC doesn't have many boats in their river right now but they may in the future.  The same can be said for Tulsa, you can't always think in the NOW you have to think 10-20-30 years down the road...

I just think it could be another fun activity to do in this town, either owning your own boat and cruising down the river or renting a boat or taking a ferry.  It would really go a long way in changing people's perception of the river and bring them closer to it, more so than riverbank development ever would.

[waterboy]

People do put boats on the river. I see kayakers, canoes, inflatables and even jon boats but I spend more time around the upper regions. Doubt there is much boating below I-44 because frankly no one knows they can or how to do it.

Ok, consider you have a power boat Artist. Where do you put it in on the Arkansas River in Tulsa? At Zink Lake? Big sign...no motorboats. It is misleading because that only applies from 11th to the lowater dam. Even then, does that preclude electric powered boats or just fueled boats? RPA has taken the most restrictive view and ruled electrics are motors as well. Most people only see the "no boats" part and assume only the rowing crew has permission to use the river. Not true. If your HPV (human powered vehicle) is registered with the state and has its numbers displayed you can put in on public property where you please. That is not conjecture, that is from my experience of operating three summers on the river.

The river is overseen by the state, the county, the city, the levee district and RPA. RPA is an authority and thus immune to oversight by anyone but its own board. Like the way our boards are operating at the fairgrounds and airport? Same process.  IOW a cluster***k that by default keeps people other than who RPA deigns worthy from using it.

The issue is one of control. The communities along the river are open to lawsuit should they allow or promote usage without providing the same protections enjoyed at a public park. They don't want to do that so they make it difficult, even so far as to instill fear of it. Signs are posted warning of swimming in the river. Not because it has proven to be toxic. From recent testing THE ILLINOIS river is the most polluted river in the state yet has intense usage. All natural bodies of water have potentially dangerous bacteria. The signs merely point out that the river is not routinely tested and has no protected and lifeguarded areas for swimming. It is designed to reduce usage and lawsuit exposure.

Would you go upstream to put in? Where? Authorities control the river through restricted access. None of the expected infrastructure exists on the river now. No ports. No docks. No picnic sites. No swimming. No commercial entities you would find at the lake. There are four boat ramps well hidden on the river. Two of them are restricted by RPA, one is even gated and locked. So why are you surprised that there is little visible usage?

I wish you would stop referring to ferries and excursions as "mass" transit on the river. That is inaccurate and misleading. It puts entertainment in league with MTA and rail which it cannot and would not compete with. You don't need anyone here to instill a vision of what using the river might be like. You have posted plenty of pics of developed rivers from around the world. Hard to believe you can't see the potential here. Like V2025 said, the best vision was the living river concept that would have stretched downstream from Zink Lake to the Jenks pond.

There are tons of issues that aren't being faced because of our negative attitudes towards public taxation and the lethargic nature of the entities controlling access to the river. We should be embarrassed that our Cowboy neighbors up the pike addressed those issues.

[Gaspar]

I think the water quality must have improved.  We haven't had another case of Group A streptococcus flesh eating bacteria in a couple of years.

I haven't seen a report but I assume that Naegleria fowleri is still present in the Arkansas River, so you should avoid getting the water in your nose or mouth, and they still have a secondary contact warning that recommends that skin contact be held to a minimum.  

The lead content, mostly contained in the silt though it is still high enough to kill some sensitive creatures (swans), and you shouldn't eat too many fish from the river.

I think boating and recreation on the river would be good for bringing the awareness of a great natural resource that we have squandered and neglected for too long.  People will be more likely to clean up, and keep clean, a river that they do more than drive over.

I also think a lot of recreational commerce can be generated by useable urban water.  The city really looks different when viewed from a boat on the river.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

I think the water quality must have improved.  We haven't had another case of Group A streptococcus flesh eating bacteria in a couple of years.

I haven't seen a report but I assume that Naegleria fowleri is still present in the Arkansas River, so you should avoid getting the water in your nose or mouth, and they still have a secondary contact warning that recommends that skin contact be held to a minimum.  

The lead content, mostly contained in the silt though it is still high enough to kill some sensitive creatures (swans), and you shouldn't eat too many fish from the river.

I think boating and recreation on the river would be good for bringing the awareness of a great natural resource that we have squandered and neglected for too long.  People will be more likely to clean up, and keep clean, a river that they do more than drive over.

I also think a lot of recreational commerce can be generated by useable urban water.  The city really looks different when viewed from a boat on the river.

I agree with your summation but you fall into the fear trap. Where were those bacteria found on the river? At the storm sewer outlets? When? In August at low stream levels? Who did the testing? Are those bacteria found in other bodies of water?

Even the heavy metals report is suspect. The recent study of lakes and rivers statewide said the concentration of heavy metals in the Arkansas came from mining in Colorado near its source. Leadville. However, it neglects to say where the testing was made. Probably upstream before it travelled 900 miles through sandy riverbeds, three dams and two lakes. Merging with the Cimmaron and then the Verdigris. Lead, gold and silver really don't travel that well or there would be mining in Keystone lake.[]

If it serves to increase awareness of nationwide pollution of recreational waters I think its great. If it is done with the same mindset as tomato salmonella alerts, its counterproductive.

[Rico]

Am I missing something here..?

The following Article states "Jenks has chosen the firm to do the work"..

[TheArtist]

Ok I am still confused here lol. On the one hand waterboy gets on to me for referring to ferries, then several other posters do. Then Vision2025 says the Jenks dam would only put water up to about 81st. But then several people comment about how nice it would be to take ferries or small boats from Sand Springs to Bixby. Then someone also mentions that gas powered and electrical powered motor boats arent allowed to be in some parts of the river. etc.

by bacjz00

""  By opening up the river to small boats and ferries to be able to transport customers (or just family) up and down the river would be TREMENDOUS. ""

by SXSW

""There isn't a marina, docks, etc. and Zink Lake is only so big. If there were several Zink Lakes though from Bixby to Sand Springs, which is what we're essentially creating with the low water dams, then with locks it would be possible to go from one "lake" to the next.""


As for those pics of other cities with rivers and river development. Not one ever showed a boat on the river that I recall. Nor a dock. The development was usually in an urban area with buildings and streets right up to the river like in Central Paris, London, Rome etc. The only boats your likely to see in Central Paris or London are large tourist boats. Hardly the kind your going to be able to get on our river with the small dams we are considering building.  



Again, what is the "vision"?  

Will boats be able to go from Sand Springs to Jenks?

What kinds of boats and size and in which areas?

I keep seeing one comment then a post or two later see one that seems completely contradictory to the previous posts about what people would be able to do. So apparently I am not the only one potentially misunderstanding what the situation is.

If you had a typical, small family sized motorboat, with the size of dams being built and locks on them, would they be able to go from Sand Springs to Jenks in it? for instance.

I just want a clear picture so that everyone knows exactly what we are talking about.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

Am I missing something here..?

The following Article states "Jenks has chosen the firm to do the work"..

This is the same selection. The 11 member engineering selection committee appointed by the County included representatives from Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks, River Parks, Corps, Tulsa County and myself. Mr. Tinker was the rep from Jenks.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


Will boats be able to go from Sand Springs to Jenks?

What kinds of boats and size and in which areas?

If you had a typical, small family sized motorboat, with the size of dams being built and locks on them, would they be able to go from Sand Springs to Jenks in it? for instance.

I just want a clear picture so that everyone knows exactly what we are talking about.

I cut to just your boat questions, hope that did not change the meaning.

I will answer your question as best that I can, if that does not work I would be glad to arrange a meeting as I have with others.

With dams spaced out at intervals (as required for various issues) as included in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan it will not be possible to take your basic family boat and run up and down the river from lake to lake.  Reason - in between the lakes the water depth is not sufficient for the safe operation of a typical family boat running at plane.  

At the dams, there will most likely be 'boatable flumes' which pass through the dams which will act as both fish passage and allow for white water activities but not the passage of motor boats.  so, with these features in place it would be possible under the appropriate river flow conditions to go downstream in an appropriate craft form Keystone all the way to Jenks and beyond.

As I posted previously we are proposing scope items to conduct additional public meetings so that just such misconceptions and misunderstandings' are reduced.  In the mean time, if you are looking for a little light reading I would suggest the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan which is available on line at River documents 20river/default.htm[/url] I would suggest review.  Phase one was the "vision Plan" which was (what I call) calumniation of all the brilliant ideas, at the time. The Phase two study is the report on what we can actually do. The TVA report is also available and includes a different perspective on the river prepared by that agency upon review of the other documents.

Hope that helps but likely not the answer you were looking for.

[waterboy]

No, V-2025, Artist wants to make sure that my answers are proven incorrect even if others are misconstruing them and using "mass transit" terminology. Call them ferry boats, canal barges, patio boats, pontoons, whatever you wish Artist, just don't compare them with busses, trains and planes. They are tourist boats or "for hire" group boats, not a way to get to work.

From my point of view, flumes would be just fine for rafts, kayaks, canoes or other shallow draft non powered boats. If those are installed most of us will be happy. One could then start a trip at Keystone Dam and end up in the navigation channel if they wanted to.

A tourist boat is different. It was I, Artist, who pointed out that RPA does not allow powered boats on Zink lake. Even electrics. That rule would have to change to allow any motorboat. I assume they'll extend that to any new lakes. Its a control thing. But there are other designs for propelling boats that the family boat doesn't use. Hovers, airboats, or jet drives mated with shallow draft hulls like tunnels or step hulls. Some pontoons operate in only a foot of water. Though in some months the areas in between would be inaccessible by traditional powerboats, these types could operate.

Is it inconceivable to believe that a tourist entertainment boat could operate as conditions allow? If that means 75% of the year and nearly 90% in the pm hours isn't that conceivable? Pay attention. During the summer months the dams generate electricity from the Keystone Dam during the day. That generating water release takes 6-8 hours to reach Tulsa and Jenks. So, starting around 2pm in the afternoon and peaking around 2am, the water level rises in the river sufficient to operate any kind of boat. Except, without some manner to breach the low water dams, they cannot make the trip from Sand Springs to Jenks. I could have operated with a cabin cruiser on this river this last spring until today and been just fine as long as I never crossed the Zink dam.

I'll make this prediction now. There will be a tourist boat on each of the small lakes formed. The only one to turn a profit will be the Jenks boat and it will be subsidized by the casino, shopping areas and the city. The other two will fade away. All other fuel powered boats will be prohibited. Any boat allowed on the river other than the rowing crew support boats will be required to create no wake which means....no boats.

[SXSW]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

No, V-2025, Artist wants to make sure that my answers are proven incorrect even if others are misconstruing them and using "mass transit" terminology. Call them ferry boats, canal barges, patio boats, pontoons, whatever you wish Artist, just don't compare them with busses, trains and planes. They are tourist boats or "for hire" group boats, not a way to get to work.

From my point of view, flumes would be just fine for rafts, kayaks, canoes or other shallow draft non powered boats. If those are installed most of us will be happy. One could then start a trip at Keystone Dam and end up in the navigation channel if they wanted to.

A tourist boat is different. It was I, Artist, who pointed out that RPA does not allow powered boats on Zink lake. Even electrics. That rule would have to change to allow any motorboat. I assume they'll extend that to any new lakes. Its a control thing. But there are other designs for propelling boats that the family boat doesn't use. Hovers, airboats, or jet drives mated with shallow draft hulls like tunnels or step hulls. Some pontoons operate in only a foot of water. Though in some months the areas in between would be inaccessible by traditional powerboats, these types could operate.

Is it inconceivable to believe that a tourist entertainment boat could operate as conditions allow? If that means 75% of the year and nearly 90% in the pm hours isn't that conceivable? Pay attention. During the summer months the dams generate electricity from the Keystone Dam during the day. That generating water release takes 6-8 hours to reach Tulsa and Jenks. So, starting around 2pm in the afternoon and peaking around 2am, the water level rises in the river sufficient to operate any kind of boat. Except, without some manner to breach the low water dams, they cannot make the trip from Sand Springs to Jenks. I could have operated with a cabin cruiser on this river this last spring until today and been just fine as long as I never crossed the Zink dam.

I'll make this prediction now. There will be a tourist boat on each of the small lakes formed. The only one to turn a profit will be the Jenks boat and it will be subsidized by the casino, shopping areas and the city. The other two will fade away. All other fuel powered boats will be prohibited. Any boat allowed on the river other than the rowing crew support boats will be required to create no wake which means....no boats.

That is a shame.  I understand there are difficulties but it seems the potential benefits would outweigh the costs.  Here we have the opportunity to create something unique in Tulsa, a string of navigable urban lakes through the city, but can't do it without one thing: locks on the dams.  Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture here but it just seems really short-sighted not to do it.  If we want a river to just look at, fine then just build the dams as is and be done with it.  But if we want to actually create a destination with our river, create something unique and interesting, then we need to look at this matter closer and decide what we want the river to be...

I have this feeling those in control of the river, and the general Tulsa public, don't know much about rivers and certainly don't appreciate the Arkansas.  This is evident when the wastewater treatment facility is constructed along its banks and new development is allowed on the banks in south Tulsa that doesn't even face the water.  I think it would be wise to listen to people like waterboy who know the river but also to hear from those who know other similar rivers and live/work in river cities where they care about it/use it.  People from Louisville, Omaha, Chattanooga, Pittsburgh, Shreveport, our Arkansas River sister cities Fort Smith and Little Rock, etc.  Tulsa is not considered by many to be a "river city" even though we are on one of the longest rivers in North America.  Until the attitude changes and we either decide to USE the river or just look at it/not utilize it we will never be considered one, which like I said is a shame because it could be different...

/Rant Over