River vote...county sets rules

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

The average American is fourty pounds overweight.

I am finally above average in something.

The average Brit may be fourty lbs. overweight, but the average American is forty lbs. overweight.[] Besides, you're probably exagerating er, exagerrating,uh, underestimating anyway.

[RecycleMichael]

I have told you a million times not to exaggerate.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Tulsa could always pair up with Sand Springs and help them with the dam if they chose to try and build it themselves.

Do it yourself dam building (sorry re-read your post, couldn't resist):

[Vision 2025]

[quote
This stumps me.  Are we referring to a low water dam in Sand Springs being required to maintain water in the entire Tulsa Co. corridor of the Arkansas river?

Why not just build a higher lwd east of Bixby/BA and maintain a higher level throughout.  Or say "screw Jenks and everyone else downstream" and add a few feet to the Zink lwd?

I'm not a hydrologist, so excuse my relative ignorance on these damn dam concepts. []
[/quote]

To needing the SS dam for water in the river in Tulsa, the answer is YES, the storage capacity this lake would provide is what makes the living river concept work.  Water will be stored from the daily hydropower flow and then metered out at a lower rate during the day.  This stored water will be from the top couple of feet of the SS lake so it will remain an excellent facility for that City too.  Zink lake may also have a need variable lake level to a lesser extent during some periods to futher stabilize the desired downstream flows.

The simple answer is yes, I suppose the City of Tulsa could just modify Zink, although that does absolutely nothing to improve the appearance, use, or environmental condition of the river below Zink and there would not be sufficient water to meter out from this lake alone.  

Technically when you raise the level of Zink but you will have to do environmental restoration (improvement) work for the habitat loss associated with a deeper pool and downstream is the best area available.  In addition to beautifying that area and providing more recreation areas habitat restoration is exactly what a BIG component of the Living River concept is which will go a long way to offsetting the environmental impact of not just Zink improvements but also the south dam.   Then to have a significantly more constant flow in this improved area you need the SS dam to better regulate the flow for all.  In these terms I hope you can you see why these areas projects are connected?  


As for a higher dam east of BA/Bixby the answer is in what you say you are not, nor am I, but I understand it from years of working with them so I'll try.  Typically the river bed slopes downstream 1.8 feet per mile average (it is flatter in SS and has more slope at Jenks).  The banks are only so high, maybe 12 feet at a given location and say you can get a pool depth of 8-10 feet (without causing flooding) that would back water up 4.4-5.6 miles and you still have to allow for major flood passage which goes over a dam unless you utilize a full lay-flat gate dam which is a significantly more expensive approach.  Remember that extreem lake depth was one of the biggest technical issues with the Channels proposal with initially desired I believe a 19' deep lake).

As for the Screw Jenks approach... based upon the momentum and progressiveness is this a risk worth taking... As for what Tulsa will benefit from on this dam? From the calls I have had, I anticipate additional commercial development on the Tulsa side but only once the dam is in place.  

[Conan71]

What is the reluctance to develop along the river in Tulsa without a dam?  I've never understood that.  It didn't keep Jerry Gordon from building the Riverwalk Crossing.  A drought-season sandy river bottom hasn't kept myself and multitudes of others from going there.

To me that is extortion from developer's who are saying unless the tax payers are willing to play ball and give them water to look at, they just won't develop.  I call BS on that.  If the development is viable, it's viable with or without the sandbars covered.

Thanks for the point on the operation of the dams, I had neglected to think of the downward grade which obviously must be there for the water to eventually get to the Gulf and had not thought about a dam east of BA/Bixby leaving it dry up-stream.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

What is the reluctance to develop along the river in Tulsa without a dam?  I've never understood that.  It didn't keep Jerry Gordon from building the Riverwalk Crossing.  A drought-season sandy river bottom hasn't kept myself and multitudes of others from going there.

To me that is extortion from developer's who are saying unless the tax payers are willing to play ball and give them water to look at, they just won't develop.  I call BS on that.  If the development is viable, it's viable with or without the sandbars covered.

Thanks for the point on the operation of the dams, I had neglected to think of the downward grade which obviously must be there for the water to eventually get to the Gulf and had not thought about a dam east of BA/Bixby leaving it dry up-stream.

 

That's something I've thought about a few times... Zink lake didn't exactly bring developers banging down the door!  It creates a nice backdrop, but it certainly hasn't really added any development to the area.  I wonder if Riverwalks business dries up when there is no water?  Doubtful....

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

What is the reluctance to develop along the river in Tulsa without a dam?  I've never understood that.  It didn't keep Jerry Gordon from building the Riverwalk Crossing.  A drought-season sandy river bottom hasn't kept myself and multitudes of others from going there.

To me that is extortion from developer's who are saying unless the tax payers are willing to play ball and give them water to look at, they just won't develop.  I call BS on that.  If the development is viable, it's viable with or without the sandbars covered.

Thanks for the point on the operation of the dams, I had neglected to think of the downward grade which obviously must be there for the water to eventually get to the Gulf and had not thought about a dam east of BA/Bixby leaving it dry up-stream.

Ask Jerry how man times he has asked what the  schedule is on the Low Water Damns...

He has done an amyzing feat with RiverWalk, which I frequent at least weekly but why has the second phase been so long ingetting started?

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Not trying to be on the attack.  Some of us just want simple answers.

A total of $9.6 million was allocated in proposition IV to the Arkansas river to wit:

Two low water dams- $5.6mm
Zink Lake shoreline beautification- $1.8mm
Upstream catch basin & silt removal- $2.1mm

If you know, how were the estimates on the LWD's so far off?

What's pissing a lot of people off right now is we are getting double-talk out of the county that LWD's were not promised, that this was just study money, etc. etc.   That's not at all what the proposition had to say about it.

I realize hindsight is 20/25 [] and that the dreamliner never materialized.  I believe I read originally that Spirit (nee Boeing) was going to recieve $250mm as an incentive to bring that project to town.  I saw economic development as a very respectible goal which, in this case, would have benefitted every community in Tulsa Co. and even a few surrounding counties.  But what happens in 15 years when that project dries up and we have another liquidation of employees like McDonnell-Douglas in the late '80's early '90's?

In light of that, do you think it might be wise in the future, instead of earmarking so much "corporate welfare" to one or two large employers to using it for ED districts which could incubate more small business and provide the type of amenities that some Tulsan's say are needed to make Tulsa a destination city?

SORRY THIS IS LONG, and has taken a long time.

The two dams (with pedestrian bridges) are projected to cost $55 million for both.  The $5.6 was based on a very aggressive match, 1/3 local – 2/3 from federal that was believed would be forthcoming.  I did not generate these numbers or match hope but 17 million was simply not enough regardless.  The other point is that those estimates were for Zink lake style dams in 2003 dollars with NO AMENITIES, no shore side public facilities, no fountains, nada, just the two dams.  I believe the hope was that the private side would spruce them up.    

Now besides the tremendous construction sector inflation which has occurred in recent years (which would have possibly doubled the projected costs into the same time frame Zink style facilities) and that Zink style dams are not what the Corridor Master Plan (Post Vision 2025 vote) said we as a community wanted and these documents were unanimously approved by the river Study advisory groups, INCOG, The County, the City of Tulsa and the Planning Commission and had significant public input and could have had more at any of those adoptions.

The $5.6 million we have, and have been guarding, will go towards construction and not just study dollars.  What was printed in Urban Tulsa to that effect was incorrect.  I corrected similar misstatements made on the radio but I guess the UT guest-ed piece was already in print and when I heard about it... it was too late.  Actually, the study currently underway is only $275K, the remaining funds would provide for engineering, permitting, and will continue towards utility relocations, and finally construction.

I have little basis for how the river dollars (5.6, 2.1 and 1. were developed but the later two do track well with preliminary estimates by the Corps.  From INCOG (who coordinated project input into Vision 2025) we understand that these were intended also as possible local match for federal funds however we don't believe, based upon discussions with the corps, that the Zink Lake silt improvements will qualify for any form of matching funds as a stand alone project and we have not budgeted for any on that work.   Now the shoreline beautification funds may qualify for federal matching funds provided that work includes a significant habitat improvement project and we have an authorization followed by an appropriation to the Corps.  

However; as an entire river corridor project we may be able to leverage all of them them as matching funds against a much larger scale project, one that will benefit as much of the corridor as possible which is why the local Corps officials believe that Tulsa County is the best sponsor for implementation of the corridor master plan as it covers the entire 42 miles.  In short the more we do the better chance we have of getting federal matching funds.



As to the promise made in Vision 2025.  At this point I do wish the language in the Vision 2025 resolution regarding the dams was clearer, but to think we would get 2 and all the bells and whistles for 5.6 is out there a bit.  I have always presented these funds as what they are, matching money for a bunch more that we need.  As a native Tulsan it is painful to see people feel duped but I see no evidence whatsoever of any conspiracy to do that, if I did I would speak up.  

I have reviewed much of the campaign material and media portrayals for Vision 2025 and have found where it was presented as matching monies yet the resolutions don't expressly say that.  Unfortunately, I believe a good deal of those who are PO'd are the result of a planned frothing of the waters by some who are chronically against everything that is not their idea.  Quite simply, no human drafted document is perfect and they found something to rally behind and if it was not this it would be something else in my humble opinion.

I believed at the time as did the majority of voters that the AA support was the right thing to do at the time and I believe it even more so now but again by my position I get to see exactly what those funds have been used for and have helped to align the Tulsa base for in the future.  AA is our largest employer and the states second largest private employer, therefore we all have a vested interest in seeing it thrive.  Oh and those injection wells, I found out today that those were part of the original Air Force facilities.  

I can't really answer your question on economic development but:  Personally (strictly), I would like to see a method of providing a business incubator to benefit local start-up and expanding business, but that can be quite difficult to accomplish and with recent alleged abuse at the stare level it has proven to be an easy target; Then, if I were King for a day (hum), one of the things on my list would be a governmental supported fund to provide no interest loans and grants to business who are required to spend money to respond to the ever changing governmental regulations we seem to can't be able to live without, bet that would slow down some authors if they had to fund the downstream effect of implementing what they draft.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Artist, you brought to mind something for me when I've looked over the names on various oversight and planning committees.  Does it seem to anyone else that these committees are usually devoid of "average" citizens and most usually occupied by CEO's, business owners, beaurocrats, someone involved in the media, political insiders, etc.?

This question is directed to no one specifically, just anyone who cares to put a thoughtful answer to it:

Why is that?  Is there not enough interest from the average citizen or are they excluded on purpose?  

If it's from a lack of interest by the average citizen then we do deserve to get whatever the "elite" thinks we need crammed down our throats.  If it's intentional exclusion, then how do we change that?  I don't have millions of $$ to bring to the table, but I'd love to be able to have more of a say in the planning process instead of being asked for my wholesale approval or disapproval on a plan.

One thing I have learned just from the meetings I have gone to on different issues and being involved with TN is that it certainly helps to be self employed. Many time meetings are during work hours and it may be that a lot of "average citizens" cant just ask off from work to go to those meetings and such. Plus it does take a commitment of time, effort, learning the issues and subject matter, etc. The more you get involved the more time, aka money, its going to cost you. Really the average person you see driving down the street probably only has an inkling that there is something going on with the river. (was a response in the TW online to the Kaiser plan by one lady who was complaining that Tulsa didnt need an island in the river and that is why she wouldnt support it).  It may be that people who are more involved with the economy on a larger scale, who own large businesses, are developers, etc. see and pay attention to things differently and notice more directly how the city and what it does affects them and the community. There is also the fact that once you have reached a point in your life where you are no longer struggling and spending a lot of mental effort to just make ends meet, your concerns and interests broaden outward more. Most likely its a combination of all of the above.

[RecycleMichael]

Thanks, twenty twenty five.

I do want better low water dams than we have now for Zink lake. Those cost us too much in maintenence and don't improve the water quality like the new designs I have seen.

I agree that it would have been impossible to construct two low water dams for 5.6 million and there has been quite of bit of inflation in construction prices.

55 million dollars does seem like a lot though. Does it include the all the stuff on the banks near the dams for that price? Just so there will not be any confusion for me, what is all the stuff budgeted for with this amount.

[YoungTulsan]

Has no one looked into the idea of releasing 5.6 million dollars worth of beavers into the river?

[RecycleMichael]

I tried to found out how many beavers we could buy for that much money...but every time the search engine would connect beaver and money it would list porn sites.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

I tried to found out how many beavers we could buy for that much money...but every time the search engine would connect beaver and money it would list porn sites.

Bada Bing!

Ladies & Gentlemen! Recyclemichael!  He'll be playing here all week.  Don't forget to tip your waitress back to her normal upright position.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


To me that is extortion from developer's who are saying unless the tax payers are willing to play ball and give them water to look at, they just won't develop.  I call BS on that.  If the development is viable, it's viable with or without the sandbars covered.

How will Cherokee Casino float its gambling boats with no water...oh yeah...I'm sure that has nothing to do with why we HAVE to have water in the river despite the fact that the Riverwalk is successful with out it...

[RecycleMichael]

I didn't know the Cherokee Casino out by Catoosa was going to have a boat. Heck, I didn't even know the Creek Nation Casino on the river was going to have a boat.

I thought gambling was going to be on shore.