Tulsa River Dams pass house despite OKC votes against

[MsProudSooner]

I grew up in Western OK and went to college at OU.  I moved to Tulsa in 1969.  Prior to moving to Tulsa, all of our TV and newspaper coverage came from OKC.  At that time, I read the paper religiously and watched the news every evening.  I never noticed any sense of competition between the two cities or heard anything negative about Tulsa while I lived in the OKC area.  Immediately upon moving to Tulsa, I noticed the negative comments about Oklahoma City and the complaints about Tulsa being shortchanged by the legislature.  IMO, if Tulsa has been shortchanged by the legislature it's because they haven't elected representatives that are very good at their jobs or were on the same page about what was best for Tulsa.  It's always a game of give and take.  "You vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours."  If you don't play the game well, you aren't going to get cooperation from legislators who live outside your area.

[cannon_fodder]

MsProudSooner:

Generally, the entity getting the benefit of the game wouldn't complain.  If Tulsa received jobs, projects, and funding from Oklahoma City I doubt we'd complain about it.  Thus, one wouldn't expect to hear Oklahoma City complain about taking tax money from Tulsa for their purposes.  Why would you?

But I agree with your general premise.  Our legislative body doesn't seem to play the game well.  For decades, as I understand it, it was because we didn't care.  The oil industry propped us up enough that OKC could have all the governmental jobs, free roads, University Funding, public hospitals and whatever else they wanted from State money.  Such is no longer the case and Tulsa is at a detriment from the lack of public health care, no true 4 year University, and no free roads leading to town.
- - -

The bill has apparently not been signed.  It was sent to the Governor on the 21st but STILL doesn't even appear on the radar.  4/16/2009 was the last update apparently:

http://www.governor.state.ok.us/billtrack/index.php?sortby=rd

[Hometown]

Waterboy has nailed most of the big issues here.  Ms. Proud Sooner also hit the nail on the head.

Its natural for OKC to do its best to feather its nest.  Competition between cities is natural and healthy. 

Unfortunately what's missing here is leadership from Tulsa.  And I truly do not understand it.  The attorneys I work for here are among the brightest, most talented professionals I've ever come across, but our leadership in Tulsa has left them with a second rate market in which to ply their trade.  It's not easy to make money in this town. 

And OKC is now more of an oil town than we are.  Boy did we ever mess up.

Owasso didn't help any in this go round either.

Having said that, I want to point out that I am happy Tulsa got something she asked but I believe the Arkansas River is more valuable to us in its natural (sandy bar) state and that creating unnatural lakes is not an improvement.  I'd rather see us take the X number of Millions of Dollars and partner with the refineries to reduce toxic emmissions spewing out of that beautiful stretch of the river and build a number of municipal parking garages with free parking downtown.

But I'm just a practical person with the ability to make my dreams come true, over and over.

[TheArtist]

I grew up in Western OK and went to college at OU.  I moved to Tulsa in 1969.  Prior to moving to Tulsa, all of our TV and newspaper coverage came from OKC.  At that time, I read the paper religiously and watched the news every evening.  I never noticed any sense of competition between the two cities or heard anything negative about Tulsa while I lived in the OKC area.  Immediately upon moving to Tulsa, I noticed the negative comments about Oklahoma City and the complaints about Tulsa being shortchanged by the legislature.  IMO, if Tulsa has been shortchanged by the legislature it's because they haven't elected representatives that are very good at their jobs or were on the same page about what was best for Tulsa.  It's always a game of give and take.  "You vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours."  If you don't play the game well, you aren't going to get cooperation from legislators who live outside your area.

You know I have thought the same thing... Perhaps Tulsa must be messing up and doing something wrong. But always there is that nagging suspicion that perhaps OKC is giving us the shaft. That suspicion was proven correct in this case.

When the bill was passed, OKC got some Tulsa got some. But then it was ruled against by the judge. (OKC snagged their part real quick like before Tulsa did)  One could say, well Tulsa should have paid attention and gotten a bill written that was correct. Still that nagging suspicion remained, but ya know, what can ya say. But then when Tulsas part of the bill went forward on its own and all the OKC people voted against it. That was proof right there imo. The will of the citizens and legislators of OKC was plain to be seen. They wanted to screw Tulsa plain and simple. They wanted to get their part, and not let Tulsa get theirs. EVEN though one of the reasons we had that dual bill going forth in the first place is because we complained about being screwed on a different thing earlier and OKC said, ok, lets let Tulsa get something, oh and do you mind,we are gonna throw on yet more for OKC. We said, ok, go ahead, we are just happy to finally be getting something. Then all this crap happens. They grab yet more, then vote against ours?! They wanted more and didnt want Tulsa to have any. Clear as day, plain and simple. How can you see it otherwise?  They showed their true colors right there.  

And Cannon is right. Of course people in OKC dont care or even have much of an idea of whats going on. They arent seeing and living the negative effects. They just see and enjoy the benefits.    

[tshane250]

I grew up in Western OK and went to college at OU.  I moved to Tulsa in 1969.  Prior to moving to Tulsa, all of our TV and newspaper coverage came from OKC.  At that time, I read the paper religiously and watched the news every evening.  I never noticed any sense of competition between the two cities or heard anything negative about Tulsa while I lived in the OKC area.  Immediately upon moving to Tulsa, I noticed the negative comments about Oklahoma City and the complaints about Tulsa being shortchanged by the legislature.  IMO, if Tulsa has been shortchanged by the legislature it's because they haven't elected representatives that are very good at their jobs or were on the same page about what was best for Tulsa.  It's always a game of give and take.  "You vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours."  If you don't play the game well, you aren't going to get cooperation from legislators who live outside your area.

It was just the opposite for me.  I grew up in Eastern Oklahoma and all our TV coverage was from Tulsa.  I never noticed any sense of competition between the two cities either.  It wasn't until I started reading this forum and other similar urban development type forums as well as the Tulsa World online comments to certain articles did I ever become aware of the competition.  The only thing remotely competitive I recall from TV was when sometime back in the '90's a TV station asked Tulsans and OKCers what they thought of the other city.  I can only remember one woman commenting on how Tulsa had a funny smell when she drove through (I guess from the refineries, or the wastewater treatment plant).  I also never get any sense of the competition when watching local news. 

[SXSW]

So then what is the current status of the dams? 

[Hawkins]

KTUL was reporting just the other day that the dams are a go.

Are they not?

http://cfc.ktul.com/videoondemand.cfm?id=38517&cat=loc

[TheArtist]

We still have to get the federal funding. Been approved but its not there to give out yet, or our turn to get it, or something like that lol. Plus I am not sure if Vision 2025 has its part of the pie ready to dole out for the dams?

Where are we on the design process and environmental impact studies?

I am also really curious as to how this is all likely to play out at this point.

Plus, I am not sure if we have enough money even with the federal, state and current vision 2025 amounts added together to do all 3 dams. We could probably do the larger Sand Springs dam, or the Jenks and Tulsa ones with the money we have. ( If I recall correctly, I think the SS dam, depending on the particular design was between 80-130 million?)

The logic for doing that one first and doing larger is that its the one that helps ensure a more steady and frequent flow of water. Captures part of Keystones flow, and slowly releases that captured amount during other parts of the day. I am also hoping that the dams have the more natural "stepped" approach to help aerate the water, help the fish migrate, and is safer for people. Plus more flow means less stagnant water times in Jenks and better water quality in general for the critters.  The best, dam design, scenarios cost more to do, but if we are finally going to build them, lets make them the best we can.

[waterboy]

First, let me say I appreciate HT's remarks and I didn't coerce them.

Please, watch the Frontline edition about the sorry state of the Potomac River, Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound. You couldn't possibly support these dams if you did. In fact you would consider it analagous to encouraging sex with heroin addicts from Jamaica. I know I was a supporter of the last project because it appeared there would be two critical issues addressed: connectability and retaining natural characteristics. As it stands now I doubt that either  will be considered as priority. They will consider it enough of a success to simply get the money to build one of them. There won't be any locks, sluices, or scouring channels. Just a dam holding back polluted runoff from the the surrounding cities. But it will look pretty. Not as pretty as the artist's conceptions, but pleasant enough.

You are naive to think that SS would be the first dam constructed. They do not have the clout or the economic potential that Jenks has displayed with their investment plans. There are businesses that have been waiting years for this dam at Jenks. SS can't even get cleared land developed. NO way they let SS go first. So expect one more polluted pond to be formed from the River District upstream to Turkey Mtn and the SS plan "put on temporary hold". Eventually the second dam at SS dies for lack of funding. That means no staged releases since the Zink Dam requires rebuilding just to add the stair stepping feature you refer to. Any extra money goes there. That means two polluted, sediment filled shallow ponds that look good but will only be navigable for a couple years (by Authority vehicles likely), and definitely not for public use.

It will look pretty, it will stimulate more shopping and housing in Jenks and OKC will just be beside themselves with envy. For a couple years anyway. We really shouldn't be doing this.

[SXSW]

I just wish they had locks like the ones built in OKC.  Waterboy, Little Rock has similar dams on its stretch of the river, have their been pollution problems there?  Many other cities have these dams.

[sgrizzle]

I should get a bumpersticker:

OKC doesn't give a DAM about Tulsa

[mjchamplin]

I should get a bumpersticker:

OKC doesn't give a DAM about Tulsa

* Rimshot *

[Renaissance]

It almost seems bitter to complain about mistreatment by the state legislature.  But then you just have to go back one year to realize that the leaders of Oklahoma City would prefer to treat Tulsa as the capital city's largest suburb.

Start with the promises:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20080418/ai_n27515777/

Gov. Brad Henry on Thursday signed Senate Bill 1819, economic incentive legislation designed to lure an NBA franchise to Oklahoma.

The measure received final approval from the Oklahoma House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon, and the governor signed the bill into law as soon as the paperwork was delivered to his office.

"This legislation brings us one step closer to landing an NBA franchise and further confirms that Oklahoma is truly a big league state," said Gov. Henry.

BUT, that was all rhetoric.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3361374

Stern said the owners learned "how close Tulsa is" to Oklahoma City "and how many citizens of Tulsa will consider the team to be, and did consider the [New Orleans] Hornets when they were there ... a state franchise."

Cornett said 10 to 20 percent of the Sonics' ticket sales in Oklahoma City will come from the Tulsa area, and Taylor noted that it's "90 minutes door-to-door" from Tulsa to Oklahoma City. Those numbers are why Cornett said it only made sense to include Tulsa leaders as part of Oklahoma City's presentation to the NBA.

"When you talk to NBA owners, the idea of people driving 1½ hours to an NBA game is something they're comfortable with," Cornett said. Including Tulsa as part of the team's sphere of influence meant the owners would "see a larger metropolitan area that they're more comfortable with."

But just because the team will be marketed throughout Oklahoma does not mean that Oklahoma City officials aren't somewhat territorial, at least when it comes to how the team will be identified. Stern said Friday the team might consider using "Oklahoma" as its name, noting that "you really see a much larger market than just the Oklahoma City market."

Cornett quickly squashed such a notion, pointing out that Oklahoma City's signed lease with the Sonics stipulates that the team name be "Oklahoma City."

One year later, the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce video:

"A Big League City"

[mjchamplin]

How could they possibly claim Oklahoma State University to be in the "Metro"?

It's over an hour away. That's misleading.

[Conan71]

How could they possibly claim Oklahoma State University to be in the "Metro"?

It's over an hour away. That's misleading.

Are they referring to the OSU campus just north of the IDL or the medical college just off SW Blvd?