Jump to content


. . . .

Quick Links .......... Lake Levels ............ SPA Generation Schedule

Photo

Joplin To Use Stockton Water?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 straw hat

straw hat

    Stippled Darter

  • Fishing Buddy
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Willard
  • Interests:Fishing, fishing and more fishing.

Posted 25 December 2013 - 10:53 AM

Here is an article about the fact Joplin is considering using Stockton as a wat source.

 

http://articles.ky3....n-lake_30641581



#2 Terrierman

Terrierman

    Plains Topminnow

  • Fishing Buddy
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ozark
  • Interests:Anything to do with water. Or Jack Russells.

Posted 25 December 2013 - 11:16 AM

Surface water sources with an impoundment are nearly always a good idea.

 

The withdrawal rate is normally way way below anything that will draw the lake level below any level that is a problem, and the attention that is paid to existing and potential sources of contaminanats (including more sampling and testing) is definitely a positve, so are all the watershed protective initiations that can and frequently do come too.

 

Be happy, its a net good thing.



#3 blue79

blue79

    Golden Shiner

  • Fishing Buddy
  • PipPipPip
  • 313 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stockton Lake Stockton,Mo
  • Interests:Fishing,Metal Detecting,looking for Arrowheads

Posted 25 December 2013 - 12:18 PM

I read somewhere that a lake was gonna be made sw of Jasper all the way to Webb City that was gonna be the water supply for Joplin.I cant remember where i read it but it was the only time i heard about it.Supposed to be in the next 50-75years.



#4 hknfsh

hknfsh

    Carp

  • Fishing Buddy
  • PipPip
  • 191 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Springfield Mo

Posted 25 December 2013 - 08:02 PM

Don't see how Stockton could possibly provide Springfield AND Joplin with water and not be strained during the hot dry summer months. Joplin would be better off to pull from Grand Lake wouldn't it ?

#5 Buzz

Buzz

    Banded Scuplin

  • Fishing Buddy
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,462 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Diamond, MO.
  • Interests:Trout, Largemouth, Smallmouth, and the Kansas City Chiefs (even during the bad years).

Posted 25 December 2013 - 09:53 PM

These people have been trying to do something for the past several years. A few years back they wanted to build a reservoir that would encroach on Crane Creek. Apparently that has been shelved for now.

If you want a little reading:   http://forums.ozarka...voir-locations/

 

Joplin was also talking about building their own lake for water usage, but that hasn't happened either. With Shoal Creek, which is already a main water source, and Spring River as a possible water source I don't see how it would be feasible to bury a water line from Stockton. But I'm not an engineer either.


Kyle Buzzard

If fishing was easy it would be called catching.

#6 Chief Grey Bear

Chief Grey Bear

    Ozark Fishing Expeditions

  • Fishing Buddy
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,278 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:That holler over yonder
  • Interests:moonshining

Posted 26 December 2013 - 05:13 AM

I still say we already have a lake at Riverton KS. Empire Lake which I do believe it is owned by Empire Electric. It is at the junction of Spring river, Center creek and Shoal creek. More than enough water in my opinion.

I remember when this first came up and we all were concerned and looking for other viable options. In all of the articles that were posted, none of them ever spoke of this lake as a source.


Chief Grey Bear

Living is dangerous to your health

 

 

 

Owner Ozark Fishing Expeditions

Executive Pro Staff  Team Agnew

Executive Pro Staff Team Jerm Werm

Executive Pro Staff Paul Dallas Productions

Executive Pro Staff Team Heddon River Division

Consultant Missouri Smallmouth Alliance

Exeutive Vice President Ronnie Moore Outdoors

 

 

 


#7 ScottK

ScottK

    Brook Silverside

  • Fishing Buddy
  • PipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avilla, Mo.

Posted 26 December 2013 - 07:08 AM

Probably because it's in Kansas and Joplin would have to pay about 8 bazillion % tax for the use of it.

#8 Walcrabass

Walcrabass

    Golden Shiner

  • Fishing Buddy
  • PipPipPip
  • 320 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:Fishing,Hunting, Sports.....same as everyone else in the world.

Posted 26 December 2013 - 08:46 AM

  Here is something to consider...... You and I know that we always tend to jump into things without truly looking way down the road, Right???? When we started doing "Flood Control Projects" , "City Water Supplies". etc. we surely knew how the liquid life we call water would cause us to prosper and attract tons of people and "MONEY".  O.K. then it would appear to me with all the greatly intelligent people we call "ENGINEERS" that they would have thought of using, reusing, and reusing again the water they had trapped. In other words  the lakes we have already dammed up are producing Water, Recreation, and Electricity. Why did we not make provisions to build multiple dams one after the other to use and reuse the water. And I don't mean 100 miles apart either. What if Table Rock, Stockton, and many other lakes nationwide had installed several dams in a succession of each other just a few miles apart? 3 dams??? 3 times the Electricity. More water trapping and more water control. The "Lakes" inbetween the dams would obviously have the ability to feed the streams below the final dam and their water levels would fluctuate more than the "Main Lake". But their main purpose would be for producing Electricity and drinking water. The "Main Lake" would then be able to be it's own entity and controlled in it's own way. To me it is just plain simple: We would have more stored water, more hydro-electric power, better control during high water and flooding, more lake fishing, and attract more jobs and MONEY !!!!! Please don't tell me it is because of NItrogen poisoning in the water either. That is controlled by the amount of water you let out and the rate at which you discharge it. I don't want to hear about the cost either because they are paid for with out tax dollars to which we all know the sky is the limit!!! These lakes and dams also create enough revenue to sustain themselves.

 

  Oh Well, I guess that is why people like most of us guys are not Engineers, Politicians, or "Planners for our Society". We just plain think too reasonably.

 

  On a second thought I guess we could just let all the extra water during high water times go through the present dams and end up in the ocean and then just keep on complaining. That would be more "Our Style" here in America......

 

Don't get me started !!!,

Walcrabass



#9 Chief Grey Bear

Chief Grey Bear

    Ozark Fishing Expeditions

  • Fishing Buddy
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,278 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:That holler over yonder
  • Interests:moonshining

Posted 26 December 2013 - 09:43 AM

Probably because it's in Kansas and Joplin would have to pay about 8 bazillion % tax for the use of it.

If that was the case, then those companies, that capture the wind and sell it out-of-state, would be out of business.

Chief Grey Bear

Living is dangerous to your health

 

 

 

Owner Ozark Fishing Expeditions

Executive Pro Staff  Team Agnew

Executive Pro Staff Team Jerm Werm

Executive Pro Staff Paul Dallas Productions

Executive Pro Staff Team Heddon River Division

Consultant Missouri Smallmouth Alliance

Exeutive Vice President Ronnie Moore Outdoors

 

 

 


#10 Terrierman

Terrierman

    Plains Topminnow

  • Fishing Buddy
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ozark
  • Interests:Anything to do with water. Or Jack Russells.

Posted 26 December 2013 - 07:08 PM

  Here is something to consider...... You and I know that we always tend to jump into things without truly looking way down the road, Right???? When we started doing "Flood Control Projects" , "City Water Supplies". etc. we surely knew how the liquid life we call water would cause us to prosper and attract tons of people and "MONEY".  O.K. then it would appear to me with all the greatly intelligent people we call "ENGINEERS" that they would have thought of using, reusing, and reusing again the water they had trapped. In other words  the lakes we have already dammed up are producing Water, Recreation, and Electricity. Why did we not make provisions to build multiple dams one after the other to use and reuse the water. And I don't mean 100 miles apart either. What if Table Rock, Stockton, and many other lakes nationwide had installed several dams in a succession of each other just a few miles apart? 3 dams??? 3 times the Electricity. More water trapping and more water control. The "Lakes" inbetween the dams would obviously have the ability to feed the streams below the final dam and their water levels would fluctuate more than the "Main Lake". But their main purpose would be for producing Electricity and drinking water. The "Main Lake" would then be able to be it's own entity and controlled in it's own way. To me it is just plain simple: We would have more stored water, more hydro-electric power, better control during high water and flooding, more lake fishing, and attract more jobs and MONEY !!!!! Please don't tell me it is because of NItrogen poisoning in the water either. That is controlled by the amount of water you let out and the rate at which you discharge it. I don't want to hear about the cost either because they are paid for with out tax dollars to which we all know the sky is the limit!!! These lakes and dams also create enough revenue to sustain themselves.

 

  Oh Well, I guess that is why people like most of us guys are not Engineers, Politicians, or "Planners for our Society". We just plain think too reasonably.

 

  On a second thought I guess we could just let all the extra water during high water times go through the present dams and end up in the ocean and then just keep on complaining. That would be more "Our Style" here in America......

 

Don't get me started !!!,

Walcrabass

There is this one minor problem with your plan and that is the available head between dams that are only a few miles apart.  They wind up being low head dams with very little storage capacity for flood control and also limited generation capacity.



#11 Walcrabass

Walcrabass

    Golden Shiner

  • Fishing Buddy
  • PipPipPip
  • 320 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri
  • Interests:Fishing,Hunting, Sports.....same as everyone else in the world.

Posted 27 December 2013 - 09:12 AM

Terrierman and others,

  After doing a little bit of research I have found that the "Head" for dammed waters is considered to be "High" if the fall of the water is over 10 feet. Considered "Low" if it is below 10 feet. The difference being that if it is Low then it takes a greater volume of water to turn the turbines for generation.

  Here in the Ozarks as in many other places in the U.S. A. dams are built in low lying areas such as creek bottoms, run off ravines, rivers, etc. These areas are substantially lower in elevation than land around them. The depth of the dam, or height of it as one might say, is usually quite a bit greater than the downstream side it dumps water into. Therefore even if the land around the dam was pretty flat then it is just a matter of building the next dam downstream at a lower elevation to the top. In this way we can artificially create the "Head" that would be needed for generation. It all boils down to the particular site and what we have to work with in the elevations, canyons, ravines, etc. and how much MONEY we are willing to spend to save (keep, retain,) the most valuable natural resource on the planet. As we know land in most dam spots is somewhat less than flat.

  There is also the possibility that we would have Turbines in different elevations in each dam so that as the water levels shrunk we could then use the lower units and thus be back in the "High Head" situation that we need. Probably need the advice of an Engineer on that one. Don't know how many holes you can put in a dam without wrecking it.

  At any rate if we just throw generation completely out of the picture we still have created more trapped water for "Drinking" etc. in these downstream dams and thus not "Lost" the water from High Flow times and at the same time not wrecked the "Main Lake" at the first dam during dry times. If worse got to worse as far as the head pressure is concerned we could always just pump the water to another location to be used for whatever. Possibly that location would have enough "Head" to generate from this water and also gain it as Drinking water. After all we are already pumping water from Stockton Lake.

 

Always Thinking ( but maybe not correctly),

Walcrabass



#12 bfishn

bfishn

    Loose Cannon

  • Fishing Buddy
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 881 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NW AR (in a van down by the river)
  • Interests:Walleye, cats, crappie, bream
    Music
    Science & Tech

Posted 27 December 2013 - 09:26 AM

Wow... I don't know where to start... so I won't.


I can't dance like I used to.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

.
count web page traffic
XM Satellite Radio
.