Tulsa River Dams pass house despite OKC votes against

[Townsend]

I'm afraid to see what the Tulsa Metro chamber has put together.

[waterboy]

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.

I've seen the river at Ft. Smith but not in Little Rock. The difference is the river gets deeper and narrower. Intermittent flow is not a problem. Really easier to manage and develop.

Many cities have dams, but you don't see many of these where this type of plaines hydroriver exists. One need look no farther than Zink lake to find out what problems they create. For us, its not the river itself or the commercial/industrial sites along the river. Its the run-off from fertilized yards and oily streets around the city area that washes into the river and is impounded by the dam. We have a great opportunity to showcase a natural river that is common to the region and all we want to do is turn it into slow moving ponds.

[nathanm]

We have a great opportunity to showcase a natural river that is common to the region and all we want to do is turn it into slow moving ponds.

As long as Keystone is there, it won't be natural in the least. The Arkansas river farther south is already a series of ponds. That's what lock and dam systems are for.

[cannon_fodder]

Waterboy,

You know I appreciate what you say.  You have taught me that the river in it's natural state is a healthy intermittent flow prairie river.  What you (perhaps) fail to realize is that 90% of people think it looks like crap the 50+% of the year it is an exposed sand bar.

Lakes, full streams or rivers, ponds - things full of water are attractive to people.  Most people don't really care what the environmental health of the river is so long as it doesn't negatively impact them.  Since most people don't fish it, don't swim in it, and really only look at the river . . . the aesthetic appeal will usually prevail.

Not trying to argue with you on this point, I know your factual knowledge about the river exceeds mine by a mile.  Just trying to explain why your perspective often seems dismissed.

[Hometown]

I don't buy your figures at all.  And I think the prevailing opinion now in our culture is that "natural" is beautiful.

Let's put any proposed economic development to a vote of the people.

Creating lakes on the Arkansas is about economic development ala Branson Landing with the development owned by Tulsa's good old boys.  I don't think that the gobs are going to be happy until they see a paddle wheel boat on the Arkansas full of tourists being paddled from a tin shack refreshment stand to a tacky amusement park -- even though it will have nothing to do with the Arkansas' history or our geography.

Now, I'm into economic development too and I think the greater and most profitable use of the Arkansas will be found in its natural state and developing parkland and themes along those lines.

[cannon_fodder]

HT, I'm just basing that off of what I see on this forum and people I talk to.  I can not think of one development facing a body of water that is as inconsistent as the Arkansas River in Tulsa.  Dry lake beds, dry run creeks, and half full rivers don't seem to do it.

I enjoy walking out in the mud flats / sand bars.  My dogs enjoy splashing threw them too.  But my observations indicate to me that development doesn't consider empty bodies of water as a center for development.  Think of all the water that is wasted in Vegas to try to make the desert look like a pond, or the "river" they installed in Bricktown, or the one they "tamed" in San Antonio.

I'm not taking a stand on the issue, just making an observation.  Nor will I stand by my 90% figure, which is just "feeling" figure.

[waterboy]

Yes, I understand that CF. My wife talks about the ugly old river all the time. She is from up north where this type of river is not common. In graphics we used to have a term for color prints that were not accurate but would fool most people. We called them "pleasing color". That's what unsophisticated users want, a pleasing river.

Economically a river full of water is easier to develop around. If that's what we've decided we want. Unfortunately the devil is in the details. As usual, the economics of development does not include the cost of maintenance, cleanup and health hazards. In this case it doesn't even include the more measurable costs of policing and rescue. It doesn't include the opportunity costs (what we could have done with the money that would have been more profitable). This is what we will regret not having prepared for. Ask Tulsan's if they want a full river with boats, restaurants, entertainment and beautiful vistas paid for by federal money and they would say yes. Throw in that it could be an ecological disaster in the making for wildlife and a pollution magnet that would fill up with sand quickly and they may reconsider.

Today, the Kystone Dam would not even be considered because of what we didn't know would happen. They would have used a multiple of regulating dams.

Nathan, I don't buy the argument that it is no longer natural. Nothing is totally natural once man steps in. However, the rhythyms created by dam releases mimic the natural flows, they mitigate the extremes to keep the flooding and drying out in control. Keystone did alter its cycle but it retains its character with meandering, sand bars, an identifiable channel, and drought cycles. Though we lost some species of fish, most remained and the wildlife adjusted. But this is pretty large scale alterations with a 8mile backup from SS and a dam downstream from heavily used storm sewers. It won't be pretty very long.

We could make use of this river's character by simply cleaning up the century of debris left in it. We could manage its character and make it a quiet source of pride in our heritage and the role this river played in it. IOW, we could go with the flow instead of forcing something that doesn't fit. Once again Tulsa does something by alternative routes that the population would have, in fact did, turn down at the polls.

Some people don't know my history with this river and may suspect my motives. That's me sitting in an inflatable kayak around the Chandler Park area of the river with the Tulsa skyline in the background last spring. Yes, I intend to someday refloat my craft and once again provide tours of the river. I prefer a river with gulls, pelicans, herons, eagles, gar, jays, paddlefish, snakes, beavers, coyotes, foxes, nutria, sand bars, rapids and turtles any day to a slow boring pond with a shopping center and a casino blazing through the night. But that's just me.

[Renaissance]

Waterboy I respect your expertise.  But my gut also tells me that there are people out there in the Corps of Engineers who have studied the issue in depth for many years and wouldn't sign off on dams that were doomed to fail. 

[waterboy]

Waterboy I respect your expertise.  But my gut also tells me that there are people out there in the Corps of Engineers who have studied the issue in depth for many years and wouldn't sign off on dams that were doomed to fail. 

Oh, they won't fail. They will successfully dam up water. That brings up a scary thought. Everyone thinks Someone is watching over us. The Corps, INCOG, the city, the county, ODEQ, Wildlife Associations, Game & Fish, Levee District...Someone. I don't think anyone is. That comes from first hand experience since 2002. I could expand but I'll try to keep it simple. I think this is being carefully managed by the players who have much to gain with water in the river. RPA, Jenks COC, Developers, Casinoes, Flintco and others. Sorry to channel FB here but they appear to be the underlying momentum for this.

The Corps has no interest in the folly of the cities along the river. Their mandate is to alleviate flooding. Build a giant ferris wheel along the banks or put a fountain on top a derrick in the middle of Zink lake with a spot light. They don't care. Their interest in the river is in any activity that would affect flooding of the river. That's it. They own very little land on the river. So if a dam is proposed and it is proven that it will not adversely affect flooding of the communities along the river, they may shake their head at the insanity, but they sign off. Especially if the senator affecting their budgeting would like to see it happen.

They are often pressured by wildlife groups, farmers and industrial concerns along the river to make decisions that would help their causes. For instance fishermen have long requested that the river not be allowed to go completely dry for long periods of time so that fish can survive. They do their best. However, they routinely ignore the rowing crew requests for regatta flows. Right Conan? I called them to discuss my tours. They said stay off their little parcel of land without permission otherwise, don't call us again. I laugh every time I hear about the efforts to protect Least Tern habitats. They flood their nests mercilessly each spring. Didn't read about it, saw it. Talked to a sportsman who told me how they destroyed fish habitats below one of their dams even though he had warned them that it would happen.

Unless myself and others like me who know this is a mistake don't continue to offer contrasting views of river development, you will someday be quite surprised to find that no one was protecting anything but their own economic interests.


Ps. BTW, why does anyone think Tulsa has much to gain from these dams? We already have one and it hasn't done squat. We don't have enough land that can be developed within our boundaries. A little over by the cement plant and public works if we can do so without much substructure requirements, and Kings Crossing, but that's it. The rest is refineries, trucking companies, a sewage treatment plant, and protected areas like Turkey Mountain. Jenks is the BIG winner in getting dam funds. River District, RiverWalk, Acquarium, and RiverSpirit. Sand Springs had a dam once. Didn't do squat. They blew it up. Think about it...follow the money.....ooooh....

[SXSW]

Cities with sandy, meandering rivers have successfully dammed their rivers for recreation with no ill effects.  Just off the top of my head Omaha's Missouri river is similar and is used for recreational boating, also Kansas City.  The Missouri and Arkansas are very similar, and if it can work there it can work in Tulsa.  I just hope they end up deciding to put in locks so they can be used in the future to go from one lake to another.

Of course I'm no expert but I don't understand why the Arkansas is so drastically different.  And seeing how OKC can turn a drainage ditch into a nice river with LOCKS makes me wonder why it can't be done in Tulsa as well.

[waterboy]

It can be done. My opinion is that it won't be. Too much money expended, too little return and it results in more overhead. Water testing, security, rescue, operations. With locks  you have to actually interact with the river and allow usage of it by the population to justify their cost. A river full of private boats, gnarly fishermen and drunken swimmers will not be tolerated. Maybe a sluice of some sort may actually happen but even then the cities take on a large liability.

The Missouri? Way drastic different. Its like the 2nd largest river in the country. The Corps has had a long losing battle with the Missouri. They admit as much. It has been the testing area for a lot of different methods of water management, most of them failed. It has water all the time because its a much larger, wider, wilder river. Much of the development you speak of consists of parks that were formed when small dams created slow areas that filled with silt. When the river rises they submerge. A lot of ships, and citizens, lost on that river in the last two centuries. I don't know about testing near Omaha but I would suspect downstream from Omaha would not be good.

I think its too late for successfully arguing against these dams. (I expect my karma is dropping as we speak The momentum is mindless. "River Development" is a euphemism for shopping centers, restaurants and condos on the river. That's what we know. That's what we do.

We cling to this idea that the river has little value now, so any change can only be for the better and compare ourselves to other communities that have done something to their river as proof. For instance, the Oklahoma River. It seldom had water in it before. Not too hard to manage that system as you divert water from other areas through a basically flat topography. It doesn't drain a large hilly area or deal with water sent downstream from Kansas. It was like putting a Koi pond with a fountain in your back yard. More importantly, I would challenge anyone who thinks it has been an economic horse for them. My son lives nearby. Both the Brickyard canal and the river are for the most part...unused. The million dollar ferries that Devon put on the river are lonely beasts.

Though there were some pretty strong arguments from sportsmen during the last river development vote, I don't see them around now.  The best we can do now is lobby for a full and realistic understanding of what they will actually do, what they'll actually cost and what we want to accomplish with them. Without the hype and with some way of holding these people accountable for what they're promising.

[okcpulse]

We cling to this idea that the river has little value now, so any change can only be for the better and compare ourselves to other communities that have done something to their river as proof. For instance, the Oklahoma River. It seldom had water in it before. Not too hard to manage that system as you divert water from other areas through a basically flat topography. It doesn't drain a large hilly area or deal with water sent downstream from Kansas. It was like putting a Koi pond with a fountain in your back yard. More importantly, I would challenge anyone who thinks it has been an economic horse for them. My son lives nearby. Both the Brickyard canal and the river are for the most part...unused. The million dollar ferries that Devon put on the river are lonely beasts.

I would disagree with your assessment on the Oklahoma River and Bricktown Canal.  You are correct, the Oklahoma River for the most part is unused... for now.  The river and its infrastructure needed to be in place first.  Now, Oklahoma City is moving forward with Core To Shore plan, which will redevelop 540 acres of blight between downtown and the river. 

The Oklahoma River, however, is the training venue for the U.S. Olympic rowing team.  The Devon boats are mostly empty, but the infrastructure is there for the river's growth in usage.  Once development begins along the river, more people will use the boats.  However, themed cruises are being discussed to get more people to use the boats, and people are warming to the idea.  The manager is applying for a liquor license to serve drinks and provide live entertainment on the boats.

And to the poster who calls our river a drainage ditch... do you mean that literally or practically?  Because before it practically was a drainage ditch but is is an actual natural river.  Oklahoma City leaders in the 1950s allowed the Corps of Engineers to f*** up the North Canadian River by rechanneling the river into a wide open channel.  Then, they cleared out miles of trees and shrubs.  It literally divided the city. 

Also, thanks to city leaders in the 1950s, Oklahoma City went from 85 sq. miles to 621 sq. miles.  Not the brightest leaders in those days.  Now it is up to us to make it work.

I wrote my former OKC district rep voicing my disdain that many OKC leaders were voting against Tulsa dams, and that it should be approved.  However, he voted in favor of Tulsa's dams.  His name is Guy Liebmann.  He did a good job with northwest OKC when he was a councilman, and now he represents a district in northwest OKC where I lived.  He is a good guy and supports an equal share of tax dollars for both cities to encourage competitive development.  But that is the best I can do, guys.

[TURobY]

I wrote my former OKC district rep voicing my disdain that many OKC leaders were voting against Tulsa dams, and that it should be approved.  However, he voted in favor of Tulsa's dams.  His name is Guy Liebmann.  He did a good job with northwest OKC when he was a councilman, and now he represents a district in northwest OKC where I lived.  He is a good guy and supports an equal share of tax dollars for both cities to encourage competitive development.  But that is the best I can do, guys.

I definately appreciate your support.

[waterboy]

Pulse, I'm not sure I see where we disagree. I do think that your river, canal and Bricktown are set up for growth. I was just pointing out that your development was on a different kind of river under different circumstances.

[sgrizzle]

Something is messed up. Several have said we'll get this money when pigs fly and now we have swine flu.