Lets Keep the Arkansas River In Perspective

[cannon_fodder]

Shall we move Saint Louis?

What of DC, Manhattan, and Los Angles?

What do you CAPITALIZE random words?

San Francisco is in one of the most fault prone areas.  Seattle is near volcanic activity.  Miami will get hit repeatedly with Hurricanes.  Tulsa is directly in line with the most tornado prone latitude and in the correction longitude.  Lets all move to Arizona, nearly disaster free (except drought).  

Or... we could use common sense and realize that flooding can be planned for and designed around.  Your argument is better suited for moving all of Bixy and Jenks and a good portion of Tulsa than it is an argument against building some trails and parks along the river.   Damnit!  My bike path is all muddy.

The more zealous and reactionary you become, the weaker your argument gets.  Keep ranting, I think you are 2 posts from losing all credibility.

[carltonplace]

You're right. Time to dig up everything within a mile of the river and move it back a safe distance. I sure won't walk my dogs near it anymore or jog or allow people to bike along it or let their kids play on the swings.

That river is a death trap, steer clear.

[Tony]

Questions not raised, are problems not overcome -

I am merely doing the same thing you proponents of this plan are -- only the "facts" are backed by study and printed history -- not "revisionist double speak" ala the "Arkansas is not a braided prairie river"

The adversary slings enough mud that sticks to a political opponent-

Arkansas River Mud is particularly sticky[}:)]

Not to marginalize your disagreement you are entitled just as I am []

What is wrong with the current system -- we can agree to disagree in a cordial manner, or we can get down in the mud -- you don't have to agree nor would I expect those who have already made up their mind.

As a couple of hundred other posters on this forum have pointed out before me -- this PROPOSAL is a back room deal with no reasonable opposition allowed.

[Fishin]

I'm kind of curious as to the hydrological effects that a large, inhabitable island being built in the middle of the river will have.  If the dams will slow the flow and create a "back up" problem for the river, what will this island in the pictures used to sale this plan do in restricting the width of the river?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Fishin

I'm kind of curious as to the hydrological effects that a large, inhabitable island being built in the middle of the river will have.  If the dams will slow the flow and create a "back up" problem for the river, what will this island in the pictures used to sale this plan do in restricting the width of the river?

That's the Channels...that idea is gone for a lot of reasons, yours among them, I believe.  The development is now on the banks of the River.  Man, the pro river guys are truly terrible at pointing out this is not the Channels.  Why is that?  Do they think that this confusion works for them?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Fishin

I'm kind of curious as to the hydrological effects that a large, inhabitable island being built in the middle of the river will have.  If the dams will slow the flow and create a "back up" problem for the river, what will this island in the pictures used to sale this plan do in restricting the width of the river?

That's the Channels...that idea is gone for a lot of reasons, yours among them, I believe.  The development is now on the banks of the River.  Man, the pro river guys are truly terrible at pointing out this is not the Channels.  Why is that?  Do they think that this confusion works for them?

This is the kind of campaign you get with haste and a media willing to help sell the plan instead of looking objectively at the issue.

[Townsend]

If you google "Tulsa river development" the Channels plan is the third down.  That's a good reason why people on a computer could be confused.

[Fishin]

I apologize for my lack of "being up to speed."
I hadn't heard much about the island lately, but did see the picture in the background of one of the supporters.

It seems that we now have one dam that is providing the full lake effect that could be taken advantage of.  Why can't we make better use of that?  Maybe the wrong people own that part?

[TheArtist]

I keep hearing people not liking this plan and complain about building Islands in the river. There are no islands in this plan. How can they be for or against it if they obviously havent done ANY research on what is being voted on?  

However as one of my friends pointed out today..." All I have seen are cute little kids saying vote yes. Why dont they show us what they are wanting us to vote for? " A lot of people arent going to go digging around, like us crazies on here, in newspapers and online to find out what this is about.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Fishin

I apologize for my lack of "being up to speed."
I hadn't heard much about the island lately, but did see the picture in the background of one of the supporters.

It seems that we now have one dam that is providing the full lake effect that could be taken advantage of.  Why can't we make better use of that?  Maybe the wrong people own that part?

No apology necessary.  It's the pro river people that seemed to have dropped the ball on the informational side of this.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I keep hearing people not liking this plan and complain about building Islands in the river. There are no islands in this plan. How can they be for or against it if they obviously havent done ANY research on what is being voted on?  

However as one of my friends pointed out today..." All I have seen are cute little kids saying vote yes. Why dont they show us what they are wanting us to vote for? " A lot of people arent going to go digging around, like us crazies on here, in newspapers and online to find out what this is about.

I thought the Sunday World made a pretty good effort at answering questions, showing the plan and its effects. Stuff you can't do to well on TV, Radio. Since the web is also fragmented it is difficult to show other than on the INCOG site which is not well known to the public.

One of the limitations of an evolving digital age is the loss of the local newspaper as the one source of information that you can refer to at anytime, anyplace, take to work and pass around. In other words, the loss of an informed public and the rise of a manipulated public. I do go on...

[HazMatCFO]

So is the moral of the story that if and when there's another 300 year flood, every Riverside establishment should be required to have enough lifeboats for every patron?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by HazMatCFO

So is the moral of the story that if and when there's another 300 year flood, every Riverside establishment should be required to have enough lifeboats for every patron?

HA! Only if they are stupid enough to go down there after there has been a flood warning saying the river levels will rise in the area above flood stage. The Arkansas River doesnt flood "suddenly". Certain creeks and tributaries may, but not the river. Any flood on the Arkansas in Tulsa will have many hours if not days of beforehand warning. It takes about 8 hours for the water to get to Tulsa from Keystone Dam. Water can only flow so fast. Even in the last flood with the lousy way they managed it they knew when and how much the Arkansas in Tulsa was going to rise. You could watch it on the news and listen to the projections. "Tomorrow at 630 it will be this high, by 830, this high, etc. Some friends and I from out of town went down to some apartments by the river and watched the water rise. They asked me if this was what people in Tulsa did for entertainment. I said sometimes, but more often we chase tornadoes lol. Bird Creek was one of the places that caught people off guard during a heavy rain and flash flood conditions.

[Tony]

Depends on what you define as SUDDENLY -- the more volume Keystone is forced to release the faster the water rises -- in an emergency situation such as the 310,000 CFS release rate in 1984 , you won't get much warning during inundation -- no time to sandbag or prepare for property damage --

and most likely if you live upstream of the proposed Sand Springs dam (depends on if or whether corps will make them expand the flood basin elevation or put up higher levees as a result of placing such a structure) such scenario would give you less than an hour to evacuate and prepare before low lying areas flood -- all the businesses and homes on the low side of elevated 412 hwy would be underwater, probably deeper than they were in 1984.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

Depends on what you define as SUDDENLY -- the more volume Keystone is forced to release the faster the water rises -- in an emergency situation such as the 310,000 CFS release rate in 1984 , you won't get much warning during inundation -- no time to sandbag or prepare for property damage --

and most likely if you live upstream of the proposed Sand Springs dam (depends on if or whether corps will make them expand the flood basin elevation or put up higher levees as a result of placing such a structure) such scenario would give you less than an hour to evacuate and prepare before low lying areas flood -- all the businesses and homes on the low side of elevated 412 hwy would be underwater, probably deeper than they were in 1984.

People knew well in advance that they were going to have to release a lot of water at Keystone. The lake didnt just suddenly fill up either.  I remember newscasters standing on the dam asking questions giving reports as the water rose in the lake. Commenting on how the dam was actually shaking and that as more projections came in it was definitely becoming clear that they were going to have to start releasing huge amounts of water. The lake didnt just suddenly fill up and then have to suddenly start releasing huge amounts of water.