Be Dammed an example for Tulsa

[Tony]

Slowly, life returns to once-choked rivers and streams Striped bass, alewife, herring—they're all here. They've all come back," says Maine paddler Steve Brooke. All it took was removing the Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River.

Since 1912, 465 dams across the country have been taken down, mostly because of safety concerns. Last summer, however, Edwards made history as the first dam to be demolished over the objections of its owner because of the environmental harm it caused.

Brooke once led the Kennebec Coalition, the group that spearheaded the fight against the dam. He can now point to the benefits of a free-flowing river. Its banks, muddy and exposed immediately after the dam was taken out, are now thickly covered with grasses. Osprey, eagles, and other wildlife have returned to the water's edge. But what really excites him are the fish.

"I am constantly impressed by the variety of habitat that the Edwards Dam removal has re-created for sea-run fish," says Brooke. "Paddling over the six sets of rapids created by the dam removal, you think of the blueback herring that spawn in fast whitewater. The fast-flowing deeper sections of water are waiting for the spring run of American shad, and the holes look like ideal habitat for the Atlantic and short-nosed sturgeon." Atlantic salmon, nonexistent upstream of the dam last year, have recently been spotted by anglers.

West Coast salmon are also benefiting from dam dismantling. In Butte Creek in California's Central Valley, only 14 spawning spring-run chinooks returned to the creek in 1987. But in 1998, after four small dams were taken out, restoring 25 miles of free-flowing river, the spring chinook run rose to a record 20,000.

While these streams are improving, it will likely be several years before the full environmental and recreation-based economic benefits are realized. If there is a lesson to be learned from Edwards and the other dams that have been pulled down in recent years, it is that restoration—and public acceptance of dam destruction—takes time.

For example, Bill Griffith, city administrator for Sandstone, Minnesota, isn't ready to call the 1995 removal of the Sandstone Dam from the Kettle River a success. After the dam's destruction, he says, fishing "went to hell" because the sand that had piled up behind the dam was washed downstream, where it filled in the riverine depressions, or "kettles," in which the fish spawn. "What we need is a big rainÑa good flood to flush the river out," Griffith says. Once that happens, he believes, spawning areas for walleye, northern pike, and lake sturgeon will be re-established.

The Sandstone Dam, a dilapidated, inactive hydropower facility, posed a safety hazard to anglers and paddlers. Refurbishing it would have cost a million dollars. Taking it down cost a fifth as much, and revealed a set of notable rapids, ideal for whitewater kayaking. "Where there was once a dam, you now have a waterfall," says Griffith.

Biologist Michael Hill is cautiously optimistic about the recovery of Florida's Chipola River. In 1987, the local community voted to take down Dead Lakes Dam. Instead of a stagnant pool, he says, "the water levels are allowed to rise and fall naturally now, so water quality is far better than it was with the dam." Today, 61 species of fish are found in the Chipola, as compared with only 34 prior to the dam removal. But like Griffith, Hill believes it will take several years and "some major local storms" to flush out the muck that had built up behind the dam and bring the river back to full health.

In Wisconsin, many locals worried that jackhammering the defunct Waterworks Dam out of the Baraboo River in 1997 and draining the dam's mill pond would leave an unsightly, smelly mess. "You've still got the pro-dam people who say it was a bad idea, that the mudflats stink, that we lost a piece of our heritage when the dam went," says Gene Dalhoff of the Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce. But, he adds, some people are changing their minds as they discover new fishing and paddling opportunities.

Two more dams are scheduled to come out of the Baraboo in the next three years. Once this happens, the Baraboo will be the longest main-stem stretch of river restored through dam removal in the United States.

Et Tu Tulsa A RIVER runs through here.

[cannon_fodder]

Interesting read, but that was a hydro damn in a coastal river.  Not too mention it blocked MOST of the river, Tulsa's dams will block off 3 miles of river (not hundreds). Very different situation IMHO.

[Conan71]

I'm no hydrologist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express one time...

[Tony]

The references were to several dams just removed -- the trend in the US is to remove dams which serve no real purpose --

My opinion is the proposed dams serve no real purpose -- just Like Zink -- they will be an unused afterthought blocking a river -- proponents look at the Arkansas as an ugly stain running thru town they must "beautify" -- the self same people have never walked in the river at low flows, never trekked from Keystone to Waggoner county line along its banks, never seen the deer, least terns, eagles, beaver, muskrat, woodchuck, and 37 different species of fish which inhabit that river.

The bubba urban society makes me ill -- we have a great RESOURCE valuable to more than just development in the river through town --

A river still runs through Tulsa -- *WILL YOU* be the one to say you helped destroy it???

[RecycleMichael]

So, Tony...

You are writing all these comments attacking the proposed river improvement tax because you just hate dams?

Answer me this...in the whole big picture...do you think that building Keystone Dam fifty years ago was a mistake?

[ttownclown]

Tony's dam argument just doesn't hold water.

[Tony]

No I don't think Keystone was a mistake because it was a dam which SERVES the city and state -- these PROPOSED dams serve almost NO real purpose -- they don't control damaging flood, generate electricity or provide for a CLEAN water area for recreation --

However they MAY contribute to additional flooding, during a major event -- they WILL damage the ecology that already exists in the river.

The problem with aesthetic dams in the Arkansas is they serve only as a reflection pool and the whims of a few developers.

There is water in the Arkansas -- just some hard heads can't see it[}:)]

There are places that dams serve a purpose, Keystone was one -- Water resources are Oklahoma's best asset -- and the Lakes that have been built over the years have served the STATE well, these dams proposed for a FEDERALLY managed river such as the Arkansas thru Tulsa serve IDEAS, I grant that water is plesant to the eye, great to see, and has potential to "improve" Tulsa's looks -- I could care less about the TAX -- like death the only sure thing -- It bothers me to no end that the development proponents won't listen to the federal biologists nor our state biologists in this deal  -- the developers realized beforehand what the impacts would be and what those answers would be -- developers make a lot of promises about the river plan which have been proven WRONG by countless studies in the last 40 years, and in the way they shrug off those answers lies my opposition. As Gaylon Pinc who is an engineer said "this is going to help the river in so many ways we can't tell you all of them" -- he can't tell us all the ways because he doesn't KNOW, all he knows is what he believes the design will do -- When Gaylon Pinc quits being a biologist(which he is not) I will quit being an engineer(which BTW I am) -

The costs for these dams are way under estimated, (25 million), actually to meet 404 requirements unless the engineers are magicians,[8] the likely final cost for Sand Springs is probably close to 58 million and Jenks proposed 38-42 million. There will be months of delays as well because of weather and situations beyond engineering control  -- this OCT 9 vote is "Silly Season" at its finest hour - even IF the vote were to fly it will take at least 24 months for any permitting to complete. I believe that the Least Tern won't be remediated above Sand Springs to Federal requirements then a good environmental law firm will be able to tie this all up in Federal Courts for an additional 5 years,

To be clear, I am not against the tax, nor improving the bank greenspace, all along both sides of the river -- the concrete plant is an eyesore -- but due to the "Water in the River" proposal I will use EVERY tool at my disposal to show what a poorly thought out idea this is.

I have had at least 1000 folks who have thanked me for my stand -- and I will continue to do so.

[cks511]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

The references were to several dams just removed -- the trend in the US is to remove dams which serve no real purpose --

My opinion is the proposed dams serve no real purpose -- just Like Zink -- they will be an unused afterthought blocking a river -- proponents look at the Arkansas as an ugly stain running thru town they must "beautify" -- the self same people have never walked in the river at low flows, never trekked from Keystone to Waggoner county line along its banks, never seen the deer, least terns, eagles, beaver, muskrat, woodchuck, and 37 different species of fish which inhabit that river.

The bubba urban society makes me ill -- we have a great RESOURCE valuable to more than just development in the river through town --

A river still runs through Tulsa -- *WILL YOU* be the one to say you helped destroy it???

Speaking of the 'ugly stain' thing...yesterday I received a little magazine called County Progress or Projects..whatever.  On the cover was 'cover' girl randi, arms crossed with her head tilted in a very flirty manner and in the background flowing over the zink dam was BLUE water with little white caps.  Do they think Tulsans who 'know' the river believe that crap?  I'd be worried if I did see water that blue, that's not the river.  Leave it alone!

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by cks511


Speaking of the 'ugly stain' thing...yesterday I received a little magazine called County Progress or Projects..whatever.  On the cover was 'cover' girl randi, arms crossed with her head tilted in a very flirty manner and in the background flowing over the zink dam was BLUE water with little white caps.  Do they think Tulsans who 'know' the river believe that crap?  I'd be worried if I did see water that blue, that's not the river.  Leave it alone!

Saw her as flirty didja?

[cks511]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

quote:Originally posted by cks511


Speaking of the 'ugly stain' thing...yesterday I received a little magazine called County Progress or Projects..whatever.  On the cover was 'cover' girl randi, arms crossed with her head tilted in a very flirty manner and in the background flowing over the zink dam was BLUE water with little white caps.  Do they think Tulsans who 'know' the river believe that crap?  I'd be worried if I did see water that blue, that's not the river.  Leave it alone!

Saw her as flirty didja?

LMAO...I meant that in the most derogatory sense possible, totally disgusting it was.  Still LMAO.

[cannon_fodder]

I did a collage of 7 X 5's of Tulsa and had them framed when I moved here.  One of my pictures was of the river and downtown from the West bridge near 21st and I went in and tinted the river blue.  Shhhh, dont tell anyone.  

(other pictures:  Driller, Gilcrease Archer, Indian at Woodward, Gardens at Philbrook with house in the bg, Buffalo standing in front of an oil rig at tall grass prairie, University of Tulsa entrance with library in bg, Boston Avenue, and the classical greenhouse at the Rose Garden).

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by cks511

quote:Originally posted by Tony

The references were to several dams just removed -- the trend in the US is to remove dams which serve no real purpose --

My opinion is the proposed dams serve no real purpose -- just Like Zink -- they will be an unused afterthought blocking a river -- proponents look at the Arkansas as an ugly stain running thru town they must "beautify" -- the self same people have never walked in the river at low flows, never trekked from Keystone to Waggoner county line along its banks, never seen the deer, least terns, eagles, beaver, muskrat, woodchuck, and 37 different species of fish which inhabit that river.

The bubba urban society makes me ill -- we have a great RESOURCE valuable to more than just development in the river through town --

A river still runs through Tulsa -- *WILL YOU* be the one to say you helped destroy it???

Speaking of the 'ugly stain' thing...yesterday I received a little magazine called County Progress or Projects..whatever.  On the cover was 'cover' girl randi, arms crossed with her head tilted in a very flirty manner and in the background flowing over the zink dam was BLUE water with little white caps.  Do they think Tulsans who 'know' the river believe that crap?  I'd be worried if I did see water that blue, that's not the river.  Leave it alone!

Sometimes the river is blue. It depends on the light, cloudiness, humidity, water level, season, vantage point and wind. Its actual color is brown due to the suspended sand and silt but perception changes with the above factors (kind of like your impression of Randi as flirty).

They may have tinted it but if you have an appreciation of impressionist painting then you know its sometimes blue. I have seen Grand Lake look azure blue to emerald green to murky brown all withing the span of a few minutes.

[Tony]

In your DREAMS []

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

In your DREAMS []

Then life is a dream. No life is a highway. No life is a bowl of cherries, or a chair of bowlies or I don't know....tedious.[]

[Tiny]

the artist's depiction is kinda how they developers are painting this picture also ... no truth in any of it and there's going to be impacts felt for years once the dams go up ... negative impacts. some of which no ones even thought of yet.