Tulsa River Dams pass house despite OKC votes against

[nathanm]

Yes. Deeper and less fluctuation in river levels. At Muskogee you get the confluence of three rivers, Arkansas, Verdigris and Grand. The barges could not operate without the locks and dams but the consistent water levels make it all happen for them.

Prior to the lock and dam projects, the Arkansas was still rather inconsistent and not very deep all the way to the Mississippi. Sure, sometimes there'd be good flow, but other times there wasn't.

[waterboy]

Prior to the lock and dam projects, the Arkansas was still rather inconsistent and not very deep all the way to the Mississippi. Sure, sometimes there'd be good flow, but other times there wasn't.

I don't get your point. Not very deep is relative. 3ft at the 11th street bridge vs 11 ft on the channel below Muskogee. Both are shallow but their is no escaping that the river is actually three rivers (hence three rivers port) at Muskogee and thus is different than here. The Grand and Verdigris rivers are younger rivers that are deeper and never dry out.

[Vision 2025]

I dont think we want lakes all the way (need some sand bar areas for least tern habitats) and certainly wont get them that way with these 3. The Jenks dam will not back water up all the way to Zink Lake for instance. There will be several miles where the river will pretty much be like it is now. Except for more flow times allowed for by the larger Sand Springs dam.

Are they still considering the SS dam being larger to capture and allow for more flow times?

Plus, I have heard that the Jenks and Zink dams will be the ones done first since there isnt enough money to do all 3 dams yet. Is this really true?


I have been reading the posts on here and listening to the comments about the flow rates and how it can be quite unsafe a lot of the time. I do think it would be nice to have more watercraft of different sorts on parts of the river/lakes. What are some of the possibilites for alerting people to the water flow rates and what craft can or can not be on the river at certain times? Could there perhaps be electronic signs at the marinas and docks which alert people to the conditions? Something that says (current flow rate =  X, small motor boats ok today from 6am-3pm, paddle boats not ok) etc. Kind of like a current and future weather report for the river that you can check online and also see right there at each marina and main landing/dock.   

Yes the SS Lake is intended to be utilized for downstream flow pacing.

A "what goes first schedule" has not been developed nor would I expect one to be for some time.  At this point, permitting time is driving the bus and we fully expect the necessity to consider the cumulative effects of the entire 42 mile corridor in permitting anything.  However; with that said, we are evaluating opportunities to accelerate some aspects ahead of others like the Zink modifications and necessary components to the new lakes like bank stabilization and habitat improvements (never a waste of effort), perhaps proceeding ahead of the new dams.  Much of this is due to a potentially faster permitting action for Zink since it is an existing permitted structure and from every standpoint is looking to be a vastly improved structure but the final answer to that question is still better than a year away.  Additionally, from my experience with in-river projects, I expect the scope and complexity of the improvements for each structure to have an influence on what goes when.  If full funding is not available at the time of permitting, I imagine there will be development pressure to consider but at this point we are proceeding with an assumption that both the new dams would be developed at the same time.

[TheArtist]

Good to know, thanks for the info. 

[nathanm]

I don't get your point. Not very deep is relative. 3ft at the 11th street bridge vs 11 ft on the channel below Muskogee. Both are shallow but their is no escaping that the river is actually three rivers (hence three rivers port) at Muskogee and thus is different than here. The Grand and Verdigris rivers are younger rivers that are deeper and never dry out.

My point is that the river isn't naturally nearly as different as you contend south of Tulsa, or wasn't until the navigation project kept it full and deep enough for navigation year round. (I have no idea what the grand and verdigris were like before the dams)

My understanding is that the navigation project used the verdigris not because it had more water, but because there is less rise between muskogee and catoosa on the verdigris than there is between muskogee and tulsa on the arkansas.

[Vision 2025]

My point is that the river isn't naturally nearly as different as you contend south of Tulsa, or wasn't until the navigation project kept it full and deep enough for navigation year round. (I have no idea what the grand and verdigris were like before the dams)

My understanding is that the navigation project used the verdigris not because it had more water, but because there is less rise between muskogee and catoosa on the verdigris than there is between muskogee and tulsa on the arkansas.

Partially correct.  Other reasons included the significantly better soil conditions along the ditch route vs. excavating the sand river bed and that as an industrial feature it needed to end up where there were vacant lands to develop as a port. 

[waterboy]

My point is that the river isn't naturally nearly as different as you contend south of Tulsa, or wasn't until the navigation project kept it full and deep enough for navigation year round. (I have no idea what the grand and verdigris were like before the dams)

My understanding is that the navigation project used the verdigris not because it had more water, but because there is less rise between muskogee and catoosa on the verdigris than there is between muskogee and tulsa on the arkansas.

Well, I have to disagree. They are different types of rivers. Even the name is suggestive of that. Verdi/gris...French for greenish gray...is descriptive of a different type of river due to a different topography. The Arkansas is brown. The Neosho, commonly called the Grand, isn't known as a sandy river with big sand bars either. It is rocky, and deep. Geologically they are younger rivers in their development than the Arkansas. The Arkansas travels through different topography near Tulsa than the other two do farther North and East.

However, there were supply boats that actually plied the Arkansas up to Muskogee at the turn of the century carrying supplies to small towns along the way. They couldn't make it up to Tulsey. Best we could do was mule drawn ferries around 11th street. A few tried and are buried beneath the sand. Grand and Verdigris were also navigable as far back as when they were first described and when Pierre Chouteau traded with the natives there in the early 1800's.

That seems significantly different than a sand bar filled river whose bottom was too close to the top unless it was flooding.

[nathanm]

However, there were supply boats that actually plied the Arkansas up to Muskogee at the turn of the century carrying supplies to small towns along the way. They couldn't make it up to Tulsey. Best we could do was mule drawn ferries around 11th street. A few tried and are buried beneath the sand. Grand and Verdigris were also navigable as far back as when they were first described and when Pierre Chouteau traded with the natives there in the early 1800's.

There were supply boats that were sometimes able to make it to Muskogee. It is shallower at Tulsa, but the character of the river was much the same along its entire length in Arkansas and Oklahoma until it was dammed and turned into a series of lakes for barges to travel along.

Certainly these days it doesn't appear to be the same at all, but that's just the dams talking.

[waterboy]

There were supply boats that were sometimes able to make it to Muskogee. It is shallower at Tulsa, but the character of the river was much the same along its entire length in Arkansas and Oklahoma until it was dammed and turned into a series of lakes for barges to travel along.

Certainly these days it doesn't appear to be the same at all, but that's just the dams talking.

Well, just not true. But its your prerogative to believe so.

[waterboy]

Here's someone who agrees with me from back in 1887. J. D. McKown's report of the upper Arkansas river to Maj. Charles R. Suter, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. (The Arkansas Traveler in 1887 reports that J.D. McKown traveled the river from its start across 4 states noting its many changes. He was commissioned to do a survey of the river to determine how many dams would be necessary to make the entire river navigable. He notes the many changes in the river as it passes through its different locations.) This is an excerpt:

The Cimarron or Red Fork of the Arkansas comes in on the right, and contributes a considerable amount of water to the main river. Its deep red tinge is in strong contrast with the muddy water of the Arkansas, and the waters running side by side some distance before mingling have a marked and unique appearance. (this is near the current Keystone Lake area)

From the Cimarron to the mouth of Grand River the distance is 87 miles. The slope of the river in this distance is about 152 feet, or 1.75 per mile. It will take about 38,000 feet of dam to improve this portion of the river, or 437 feet per mile. (this is the SS/Tulsa/Jenks area)

About 3 miles above the mouth of Grand River is the bridge of the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad. The length is 800 feet; there are four spans of 200 feet each, and the lower chord is 34 above low-water. The bridge is a strong and handsome structure, built of wood and iron. It has no draw, and may be considered an obstruction. (this must be between Coweta and Muskogee)

About one-fourth of a mile above, the mouth of the Verdigris empties and makes quite an addition to the volume of water. The Grand River discharges still more than the Verdigris, and together they make a very perceptible difference in the main stream.
Below the mouth of the Grand, the river changes very much in its character. The bed of the river is not so wide, the channel much better, and the bars and banks contain more gravel. ( imagine that).

He then makes the point that none of the Indian Territory below the Kansas border has any potential for trade until reaching the Ft.Smith/Little Rock area. Even then OK wasn't respected much.

[Red Arrow]

I read somewhere that at certain times of the year the Arkansas R. was deep enough for paddle wheel boats at least as far as Tulsa.  I'll try to re-find my source this weekend.

[custosnox]

and if I remember it correctly, Will Rogers was quoted saying something along the lines of we'll never be able to tame the arkansas.

[custosnox]

I'm doing good on searches today

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902371-1,00.html

[waterboy]

I read somewhere that at certain times of the year the Arkansas R. was deep enough for paddle wheel boats at least as far as Tulsa.  I'll try to re-find my source this weekend.

In one of the local history books is a pic of people dressed up on a paddle wheel that left SS and was to dock at Jenks and return. The water was high when they left but it got stuck in a snag and the water dropped leaving them stranded in Jenks. They had to return by rail.
There were and are, times when just about any boat can navigate the river around Tulsa, but within an hour or two you can be hopelessly stranded. Snags are not so much a problem these days as they were in the 1800's.

[Townsend]

So now that, once again, OKC wins and denies Tulsa our share of the bond money, I think we may need to rethink Vision 2029 money directions.

High Court Rejects Bonds for Tulsa's Zink Dam

http://kwgs.com/post/high-court-rejects-bonds-tulsas-zink-dam

TULSA, Okla. (AP) — The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that a proposed $25 million state bond issue for improvements at Tulsa's Zink Lake Dam is an unconstitutional gift to the City of Tulsa.

The state's high court ruled Tuesday that such a gift is specifically prohibited in the Oklahoma Constitution.

The Legislature initially approved the bonds in 2009 with the understanding that matching federal funds would be used to help build a series of low-water dams along the Arkansas River. But the federal funding never materialized and state Sen. Patrick Anderson challenged the bonds after an effort to issue them for a new purpose.

Attorneys for the state and the Tulsa River Parks Authority had argued the project serves a state public purpose and funding should be allowed to go forward.

I'm sure the representatives have our best interests at heart.  We have local reps who are more concerned about making sure the capital has a misspelled monument to YHWH Law.

So...super.